Apache Crash

Velocity173

Velocity173

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
16,369
Display Name
Velocity173
Silly Apache pilots. She's not a Chinook. She won't float! :eek:

 
If they just didn't have the added weight of the stupid radar on top of the mast, they would have made it. :D
 
Velocity, The reports of engine failure I saw yesterday were reversed due to some people thinking the anti-collision strobe on the engine nacelle was a puff of fire. I didn't see anything that would indicate failure. However, I know none of the facts. It looks like a slow entry to me. His bank accounts were all empty at the same time. Poor bastard.
 
Very similar to the ******* (front seater was too junior to get called an *******) in AFG that did this with one of our airplanes. He was a lot worse though.
 
Soldier64 said:
Velocity, The reports of engine failure I saw yesterday were reversed due to some people thinking the anti-collision strobe on the engine nacelle was a puff of fire. I didn't see anything that would indicate failure. However, I know none of the facts. It looks like a slow entry to me. His bank accounts were all empty at the same time. Poor bastard.
Click to expand...

Yep. Not enough speed in the pull, nose down at low altitude, probably heavy (coning) and "mushed" it on in.

Both weren't injured so that's a bright spot in the whole mess.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yep. Not enough speed in the pull, nose down at low altitude, probably heavy (coning) and "mushed" it on in.

Both weren't injured so that's a bright spot in the whole mess.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing their egos were violently injured. Their bung holes were probably violently injured by someone higher up afterwards.
 
overdrive148 said:


Is this maneuver that easy to screw up?
Click to expand...
I thought the cobra wreck was an engine failure.

If you look up the phrase "easy to screw up" it could have a helicopter picture with no words and be correct. If you pay attention and are prepared for the mission helicopters can be easy to get right. There is just a whole bunch of **** going on aerodynamically and they are exponentially more unforgiving than airplanes.
 
The manuever is called return to target or usually referred to as a "RTT." Is mostly applied by attack guys like S64.

The problem with execution lies in several factors. How heavy the aircraft, DA, how much altitude gained, how much reserve power the aircraft has. Of course, how aggressive the pilot does the manuever as well.

To quote Army Fundamentals of Flight:

"Aviators unfamiliar with this characteristic may be surprised at the rapid build of sink rates when turning the aircraft to bank angles approaching 60 degrees. When flying heavy aircraft in a hot enviroment, sufficient time and altitude may not be available to arrest the resultant descent."

And in the Apache Afghan vid, most likely a mushing condition:

"High aircraft gross weight and high density altitude are conditions conducive to and can aggravate mushing."

I went up in an old Army Cobra a couple years ago. We did several RTTs but they were several hundred feet up as well. The pilot had plenty of time to recover. If done correctly, they should look like this:

 
The maneuver is extremely easy to misjudge. We fly the 64 so heavy that it isn't worth trying usually. Also, unless its a surprise, you shouldn't fly over your target to require an RTT. Current TTPs call for a break at some distance prior to the target after a switches hot run with your break being covered by gun 2. There is a lot wrong with the AFG 64 crash, and I was in theater 2 weeks after (same location) and briefed on what happened, but I will not share anything other than to say it was not smart, not requested, and poorly executed.
 
Velocity173 said:
If done correctly, they should look like this:
Click to expand...
I want to question the title of that video as that is more pitch back turn than RTT. While similar, as you know, there are some fairly big differences. That 58 driver is very smooth and doing a good job, but it is quite a bit more tame than a true RTT in my opinion as an attack guy (take that for what it's worth.)
 
Soldier64 said:
I want to question the title of that video as that is more pitch back turn than RTT. While similar, as you know, there are some fairly big differences. That 58 driver is very smooth and doing a good job, but it is quite a bit more tame than a true RTT in my opinion as an attack guy (take that for what it's worth.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, the ones I did in the Cobra were pretty much rotations at almost zero airspeed. Pretty aggressive compared to the 58 vid. Then again, I wouldn't want to do anything aggressive with a 58. :D

By the way, do you all actually have RTT in the ATM?
 
Velocity173 said:
ATM
Click to expand...
You know they are abolishing airframe specific ATMs? They are going to write all common tasks with considerations for each platform. There are some that inherently will be platform specific, but that is their idea...
 
Soldier64 said:
You know they are abolishing airframe specific ATMs? They are going to write all common tasks with considerations for each platform. There are some that inherently will be platform specific, but that is their idea...
Click to expand...

Jeez! Just the basic task list with have differences for each airframe. Some of the mission tasks are like night and day. That'll be one thick manual!

They did a pretty good job combining aerodynamics with night tactics in Fundamentals of Flight though. Maybe this will work. Really, I see no advantage in combining ATMs. I guess they want to save some trees.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top