Marine One Woes
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dangermouse
This thread wasn't personal until someone decided to make it personal in post #40.
You.
Jackonicko
Regulars in this forum know (a) that I moderate impartially and (b) that I rarely delete a post.
I deleted your previous post because it contained extremely offensive personal abuse which went way beyond robust debate.
_______________________
Robust debate is acceptable.
Personal attacks are not.
Play the ball, not the player.
Heliport
This thread wasn't personal until someone decided to make it personal in post #40.
You.
Jackonicko
Regulars in this forum know (a) that I moderate impartially and (b) that I rarely delete a post.
I deleted your previous post because it contained extremely offensive personal abuse which went way beyond robust debate.
_______________________
Robust debate is acceptable.
Personal attacks are not.
Play the ball, not the player.
Heliport
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the Marines have finally figured out that the aircraft they (or the politicians/beancounters) bought doesn't work as advertised, I suggest a nice big bonfire somewhere out West would be the best value for money. We in Australia will gladly supply an hours worth of fuel called the Navy SeaSprite (maybe it is just a Navy thing
). That would be a really good cookout/barb-b-q for the next PPrune Bash and we can all sit around, drinking beer and waxiing lyrical about poor government purchasing.
Long Live the S61
). That would be a really good cookout/barb-b-q for the next PPrune Bash and we can all sit around, drinking beer and waxiing lyrical about poor government purchasing.Long Live the S61
Very disappointed to see Jackonicko's post deleted. I think HP, your impartiality is perhaps less than it might be. Please re-read his post and Nicks's in their full contexts'.
Cheers.
Looking forwards to seeing some figures for both types.
PS. Top tip: don't fly the president in an S-92 at 165 KIAS!!!!!!!!
Cheers.
Looking forwards to seeing some figures for both types.
PS. Top tip: don't fly the president in an S-92 at 165 KIAS!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
My reference to "crap" was to refute your belief that I somehow used old data to make a biased case. Not true, as shown, and insulting. The EH-101 brochure I used has a date of 2004 on the computer file properties. You can extend my use of "crap" to include your whole set of points, if you wish, but that is your characterization, not mine. I agree with your characterization, however I do not originate it.
I am saddened by your lack of understanding of how aircraft are built, certified and subsequently modified, as shown by your incredulity about a 1985 paper as somehow relevant to the EH-101's design safety. Yes, its an old paper, but the EH-101 is an old design. That paper was written by Richard Case, who was the chief designer for the 101, and he laid out how he selected the airworthiness crash safety standard (well beyond the then-current civil standard, but by his admission, below the US Military standard.) He did it for weight savings, as the strength of the fuselage is the single biggest contributer to empty weight. The G levels that you dislike on that chart are actually backed up by the EH 101 brochures, which used to brag about 15 g's, until I publicized how the real military standard is 20 g's, at which time the brochure was updated and the g reference was removed.
I realize that you and dangermouse believe fervently in your country's goods, and that this belief extends to the sure knowledge that I must be lying if I say bad things about your pet machine. This is not the case. I could show you pictures of a crumpled aircraft that crashed from a hover, and that trapped its crew, because the sub-standard fuselage strength, but I do not want to stoop to that level. Frankly, the S-61, one of my favorite helos, would behave similarly. But by that same token, I am not foolish enough to look real data in the face, data I am not able to understand, and then close my eyes and cry, "liar!"
If you believe that the fuselage is redesigned on alternate Tuesdays, and that the 1985 paper is not relevant, you are wrong. If you believe that the US Navy is not spending billions to upgrade the EH-101 to meet modern crash standards, you are also wrong. And if you believe that this redesign does not cost the EH-101 thousands of pounds of weight, weight that causes it to fail to perform adequately, you are also wrong.
If you cannot read the Lockheed press release where they request dumping the increment I aircraft and moving to the increment II aircraft as repudiation of the EH-101 as a presidential transport, you are also wrong.
Waspy, thanks for the steer toward the brochures with the -8E engine, that is certainly a way for the EH-101 to then gain advantage over the H-92. Please be reminded that the funds to install and qualify that engine came from the US Navy, as part of the Presidential program, a case I made years ago that the US Gov would have to pay to make the EH carry more than the H-92. My words about crash safety are perhaps harsh (as was my admonishment to you, who have been a relative gentleman), but I too get steamed when I am accused of lying as we have technical discussions. And my ire about having crews cut from machines that crash is far greater than my ire when folks who have no idea what they are talking about use ad hominem attacks when their intellect and knowledge fail them.
Matthew,
Yes, if the H-92 blades were put on the EH-101 and the BERP blades removed, it would gain over 2,000 lbs of hover performance for the same power. No, the field is not leveled when you presume to spend billions modifying all machines to the same standard, the field is leveled when you load them up as is and fly them. And that is what my slides do.
Your point that the two aircraft preform about the same is valid, in fact, that is how I entered this thread, and that is what made dangermouse have hypertension! The very idea that the smaller, 2 engined H-92 could carry what the behemouth EH-101 can carry is simply not British!!
And for the record, heliport, the brute, has trimmed my posts when I go over the top, and I understand why. Without moderation, pprune would quickly become like rec.aviation.rotorcraft, a dumping grounds for spoiled children.
My reference to "crap" was to refute your belief that I somehow used old data to make a biased case. Not true, as shown, and insulting. The EH-101 brochure I used has a date of 2004 on the computer file properties. You can extend my use of "crap" to include your whole set of points, if you wish, but that is your characterization, not mine. I agree with your characterization, however I do not originate it.
I am saddened by your lack of understanding of how aircraft are built, certified and subsequently modified, as shown by your incredulity about a 1985 paper as somehow relevant to the EH-101's design safety. Yes, its an old paper, but the EH-101 is an old design. That paper was written by Richard Case, who was the chief designer for the 101, and he laid out how he selected the airworthiness crash safety standard (well beyond the then-current civil standard, but by his admission, below the US Military standard.) He did it for weight savings, as the strength of the fuselage is the single biggest contributer to empty weight. The G levels that you dislike on that chart are actually backed up by the EH 101 brochures, which used to brag about 15 g's, until I publicized how the real military standard is 20 g's, at which time the brochure was updated and the g reference was removed.
I realize that you and dangermouse believe fervently in your country's goods, and that this belief extends to the sure knowledge that I must be lying if I say bad things about your pet machine. This is not the case. I could show you pictures of a crumpled aircraft that crashed from a hover, and that trapped its crew, because the sub-standard fuselage strength, but I do not want to stoop to that level. Frankly, the S-61, one of my favorite helos, would behave similarly. But by that same token, I am not foolish enough to look real data in the face, data I am not able to understand, and then close my eyes and cry, "liar!"
If you believe that the fuselage is redesigned on alternate Tuesdays, and that the 1985 paper is not relevant, you are wrong. If you believe that the US Navy is not spending billions to upgrade the EH-101 to meet modern crash standards, you are also wrong. And if you believe that this redesign does not cost the EH-101 thousands of pounds of weight, weight that causes it to fail to perform adequately, you are also wrong.
If you cannot read the Lockheed press release where they request dumping the increment I aircraft and moving to the increment II aircraft as repudiation of the EH-101 as a presidential transport, you are also wrong.
Waspy, thanks for the steer toward the brochures with the -8E engine, that is certainly a way for the EH-101 to then gain advantage over the H-92. Please be reminded that the funds to install and qualify that engine came from the US Navy, as part of the Presidential program, a case I made years ago that the US Gov would have to pay to make the EH carry more than the H-92. My words about crash safety are perhaps harsh (as was my admonishment to you, who have been a relative gentleman), but I too get steamed when I am accused of lying as we have technical discussions. And my ire about having crews cut from machines that crash is far greater than my ire when folks who have no idea what they are talking about use ad hominem attacks when their intellect and knowledge fail them.
Matthew,
Yes, if the H-92 blades were put on the EH-101 and the BERP blades removed, it would gain over 2,000 lbs of hover performance for the same power. No, the field is not leveled when you presume to spend billions modifying all machines to the same standard, the field is leveled when you load them up as is and fly them. And that is what my slides do.
Your point that the two aircraft preform about the same is valid, in fact, that is how I entered this thread, and that is what made dangermouse have hypertension! The very idea that the smaller, 2 engined H-92 could carry what the behemouth EH-101 can carry is simply not British!!
And for the record, heliport, the brute, has trimmed my posts when I go over the top, and I understand why. Without moderation, pprune would quickly become like rec.aviation.rotorcraft, a dumping grounds for spoiled children.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is difficult to take serious any individuals who wants to debate character under an alias!
Heliport:
I had never heard "play the ball not the player" before. Could this be the origin of the american rap saying "Don't hate the player, hate the game"?
Heliport:
I had never heard "play the ball not the player" before. Could this be the origin of the american rap saying "Don't hate the player, hate the game"?
Last edited by diethelm; 24th May 2007 at 18:14.
And what was unacceptable about the second of my posts to get the "deletement treatment" from Mr Lappos' fan club?
That I highlighted the many insults and pieces of rude and dismissive arrogance by Nick Lappos to those who had the temerity to disagree with him, or because I pointed out that this supposedly neutral mod had blamed me for 'going personal' at post 40, when in fact it was somebody else?
I note that Mr Lappos still hasn't been censured for his abuse, nor for his continuing arrogance and pompous rudeness, except by 212 Man.
("You can extend my use of "crap" to include your whole set of points, if you wish, but that is your characterization, not mine. I agree with your characterization, however I do not originate it" or "folks who have no idea what they are talking about.")
Why is it one rule for one, and one for another?
You think that Merlin crashworthiness hasn't been improved since 1985, Nick? That was TWO YEARS before the first prototype even flew.
Five Increment 1, 18 increment 2. Where's the change?
That I highlighted the many insults and pieces of rude and dismissive arrogance by Nick Lappos to those who had the temerity to disagree with him, or because I pointed out that this supposedly neutral mod had blamed me for 'going personal' at post 40, when in fact it was somebody else?
I note that Mr Lappos still hasn't been censured for his abuse, nor for his continuing arrogance and pompous rudeness, except by 212 Man.
("You can extend my use of "crap" to include your whole set of points, if you wish, but that is your characterization, not mine. I agree with your characterization, however I do not originate it" or "folks who have no idea what they are talking about.")
Why is it one rule for one, and one for another?
You think that Merlin crashworthiness hasn't been improved since 1985, Nick? That was TWO YEARS before the first prototype even flew.
Five Increment 1, 18 increment 2. Where's the change?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
What you don't know about helicopters has built an industry. You continue because you have no way to back down!
The design constraints for an aircraft are set years before it flys, because the engineers have to know what to design. Then the aircraft is designed, built and tested, then certified, where it is NOT changed until some major source of cash comes along.
You prattle on, and show your ignorance about this issue, and it is again frustrating. BTW ignorance means lack of knowledge, in your case it is lack knowing what you don't know.
What you don't know about helicopters has built an industry. You continue because you have no way to back down!
The design constraints for an aircraft are set years before it flys, because the engineers have to know what to design. Then the aircraft is designed, built and tested, then certified, where it is NOT changed until some major source of cash comes along.
You prattle on, and show your ignorance about this issue, and it is again frustrating. BTW ignorance means lack of knowledge, in your case it is lack knowing what you don't know.
Nick,
If you don't think that major orders result in just that kind of cash injection, and just that kind of stimulus for improvement, you're as deluded as you think I am.
And at least I can spell simple words like 'flies' and can engage in debate without labelling others as simpletons. Since you can't, you'd better talk to yourself, because I'm not going to waste time on you.
If you don't think that major orders result in just that kind of cash injection, and just that kind of stimulus for improvement, you're as deluded as you think I am.
And at least I can spell simple words like 'flies' and can engage in debate without labelling others as simpletons. Since you can't, you'd better talk to yourself, because I'm not going to waste time on you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
"or because I pointed out that this supposedly neutral mod had blamed me for 'going personal' at post 40, when in fact it was somebody else?"
The Mod didn't blame you for post 40:
"or because I pointed out that this supposedly neutral mod had blamed me for 'going personal' at post 40, when in fact it was somebody else?"
The Mod didn't blame you for post 40:
dangermouse
This thread wasn't personal until someone decided to make it personal in post #40.
You.
This thread wasn't personal until someone decided to make it personal in post #40.
You.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport,
"Play the ball not the man." Well said.
Jackonicko
It is still as written, I can understand the mis-understanding though.
Nick,
Nobody treats safety lightly, any helicopter crash is a bad thing for the whole industry, and a picture of a mangled airframe does nobody any good.
I could show you pictures of a crumpled aircraft that crashed from a hover, and that trapped its crew, because the sub-standard fuselage strength, but I do not want to stoop to that level.
But you do make the statement
- That is some accident recorder that can show that the airframe stayed under 20g throughout the crash, and I'm amazed you have access to the information (assuming that it wasn't a Sikorsky product) as I didn't think the industry was that open, but I'm happy if it is.
As for "lying" and I use the word most distinctly in quotes.
It sounds to me like DM has detailed knowledge of the EH101, and took exception to what he saw as an opinion being stated as fact despite his own personal knowledge to the contrary. We will know who is correct if/when an Increment 1 aircraft flies at mission weight. I will watch the press eagerly.
A direct quote from the EH101 VVIP brochure ... are we using the same internet, or is it not just EH101 fans who have lost the art of reading brochures?
"Play the ball not the man." Well said.
Jackonicko
It is still as written, I can understand the mis-understanding though.
Nick,
Nobody treats safety lightly, any helicopter crash is a bad thing for the whole industry, and a picture of a mangled airframe does nobody any good.
I could show you pictures of a crumpled aircraft that crashed from a hover, and that trapped its crew, because the sub-standard fuselage strength, but I do not want to stoop to that level.
But you do make the statement
- That is some accident recorder that can show that the airframe stayed under 20g throughout the crash, and I'm amazed you have access to the information (assuming that it wasn't a Sikorsky product) as I didn't think the industry was that open, but I'm happy if it is.As for "lying" and I use the word most distinctly in quotes.
It sounds to me like DM has detailed knowledge of the EH101, and took exception to what he saw as an opinion being stated as fact despite his own personal knowledge to the contrary. We will know who is correct if/when an Increment 1 aircraft flies at mission weight. I will watch the press eagerly.
• Airframe structure designed to
withstand 20 g impact without
decreasing cabin volume
withstand 20 g impact without
decreasing cabin volume
A direct quote from the EH101 VVIP brochure ... are we using the same internet, or is it not just EH101 fans who have lost the art of reading brochures?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waspy,
That crash I mention occurred from the hover, so it most certainly did NOT exceed 20g, in any way. A fully capable fuselage would not crumple into a heap from a hover in any case. The forward crash strength of the 101 is 8 g which is far short of the 20G forward requirement of the US Mil, and a very much bigger issue in the required fuselage redesign, imho. I understand that the new fuselage has every frame redesigned (the Navy demand to increase the strength by 250% requires a whole new fuselage.) I also understand that the US has resurrected the NASA fixture at Langley AFB that was built to train the lunar landing astronauts and later used to crash many test aircraft as a tool to help prove the new EH fuselage in actual crash conditions. Since this entire redesign is mythical to dangermouse, he will volunteer to stand under the new EH airframe as it is (not) dropped....
That 15g quote comes from the same brochure I used earlier, it was in all EH brochures until pulled when it becaame proof of the less than fully capable crashworthiness - is that soft enough for you? ;-)
dangermouse may know lots of things, but he does not know that the EH-101's safety design meets US Mil standards, because it most certainly and provably does not. I will not sit and let anonymous people slur my name when I post what I know and can prove, while he hides and insinuates.
I do think you have helped this discourse, frankly, and also have tried to keep it above board. Thanks.
That crash I mention occurred from the hover, so it most certainly did NOT exceed 20g, in any way. A fully capable fuselage would not crumple into a heap from a hover in any case. The forward crash strength of the 101 is 8 g which is far short of the 20G forward requirement of the US Mil, and a very much bigger issue in the required fuselage redesign, imho. I understand that the new fuselage has every frame redesigned (the Navy demand to increase the strength by 250% requires a whole new fuselage.) I also understand that the US has resurrected the NASA fixture at Langley AFB that was built to train the lunar landing astronauts and later used to crash many test aircraft as a tool to help prove the new EH fuselage in actual crash conditions. Since this entire redesign is mythical to dangermouse, he will volunteer to stand under the new EH airframe as it is (not) dropped....
That 15g quote comes from the same brochure I used earlier, it was in all EH brochures until pulled when it becaame proof of the less than fully capable crashworthiness - is that soft enough for you? ;-)
dangermouse may know lots of things, but he does not know that the EH-101's safety design meets US Mil standards, because it most certainly and provably does not. I will not sit and let anonymous people slur my name when I post what I know and can prove, while he hides and insinuates.
I do think you have helped this discourse, frankly, and also have tried to keep it above board. Thanks.
Mr Lappos.
If you expect courtesy - if you expect people not to slur your name, if you prefer (though I'd say that it's your statements that are being criticised, not your character) - then you need to extend similar courtesy to those with whom you disagree.
If you expect courtesy - if you expect people not to slur your name, if you prefer (though I'd say that it's your statements that are being criticised, not your character) - then you need to extend similar courtesy to those with whom you disagree.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick's101 data is not applicable to VH71 which has the latest CT7-8E engines which I understand are similar to the S92 engine. Therefore the payload range figures are wrong.
There are 15600Kg 101s flying with operators today. If VH71 is the same weight how come it will not HIGE?
Well done USN on buying something that has proven capability. If you beef it up to make is stronger so be it. But if its still a 15600Kg heli it clearly will fly - nice one.
There are 15600Kg 101s flying with operators today. If VH71 is the same weight how come it will not HIGE?
Well done USN on buying something that has proven capability. If you beef it up to make is stronger so be it. But if its still a 15600Kg heli it clearly will fly - nice one.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
No. It has not been edited.
You were so keen to criticise my moderating that you didn't read it properly.
The post is and always has been in three parts. The first is addressed specifically to dangermouse by name, the second specifically to you by name and the third (below the line) as a general warning to those posters resorting to personal attacks and abuse.
The Mil Forum where you normally post is monitored but largely unmoderated. This forum, in common with all others on PPRuNe is moderated - although it's largely self-moderating because the regulars know the difference between a robust exchange of views and personal abuse. Bad feeling is very rare here, and I intend to keep it that way. If you don't like the way we do things, don't post here.
Warning:
You've only just started posting in this forum and I've already had more than enough of your allegations and offensive allegations against me. I am not prepared to put up with any more.
Heliport
"It's been edited, I think"
You were so keen to criticise my moderating that you didn't read it properly.
The post is and always has been in three parts. The first is addressed specifically to dangermouse by name, the second specifically to you by name and the third (below the line) as a general warning to those posters resorting to personal attacks and abuse.
The Mil Forum where you normally post is monitored but largely unmoderated. This forum, in common with all others on PPRuNe is moderated - although it's largely self-moderating because the regulars know the difference between a robust exchange of views and personal abuse. Bad feeling is very rare here, and I intend to keep it that way. If you don't like the way we do things, don't post here.
Warning:
You've only just started posting in this forum and I've already had more than enough of your allegations and offensive allegations against me. I am not prepared to put up with any more.
- If you wish to continue posting, restrict your comments to the thread topic.
- If you post one more comment about the way this forum is moderated, I'll ban you.
- There will be no further warning.
Heliport
I made no offensive allegations against you, Heliport, and publicly apologise if you took offence. No offence was intended.
I particularly apologise for having jumped to the conclusion that the remark about post 40 was aimed at me. As you surmise, I must have mis-read it.
I'm not the only person here causing 'bad feeling' - it takes two to tango, and my dance partner is dancing with other people as well as me.
I particularly apologise for having jumped to the conclusion that the remark about post 40 was aimed at me. As you surmise, I must have mis-read it.
I'm not the only person here causing 'bad feeling' - it takes two to tango, and my dance partner is dancing with other people as well as me.
HC
Post deleted: 100% childish personal comments deliberately designed to provoke.
I have been trying to move this thread away from personal abuse and back to the topic. I will not allow you or anyone else to undermine my efforts.
---------------
General Warning:
Post deleted: 100% childish personal comments deliberately designed to provoke.
I have been trying to move this thread away from personal abuse and back to the topic. I will not allow you or anyone else to undermine my efforts.
---------------
General Warning:
- Any further posts from any source which contain personal abuse and/or deliberately provocative personal remarks will be deleted.
- I have asked posters to co-operate. If I have to enforce it by banning those who don't respond to requests, I will.