Announcement

Collapse

Terms of Use Agreement

1. You agree, through your use of these public Forums, not to post any material which is unlawful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, sexually orientated, abusive, hateful, harassing, threatening, harmful, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you. You further agree not to use these public Forums for advertising or other commercial enterprise purposes. Any questions directed to, or concerning the administration of this website, will be sent to admin@popasmoke.com and not posted to the public Forums.

2. All postings express the views of the author, and neither the administrators nor POPASMOKE will be held responsible for the content of any postings submitted by the Members or anyone else. The administrators of these Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any postings for any reason. Members who make postings on the Forums which are not in accordance with the Terms of Use Agreement, risk having their posting privileges withdrawn.
See more
See less

MV-22 and "HOT LZ's"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dchurchin
    replied
    Originally posted by jdullighan View Post
    Eventually an interlock was installed to ensure that the system could not be engaged above 70 knots. But there's a way to cheat that too.
    I was introduced to Frogs in 1972 in the "D" model. The interlock for Hover Aft was built into the pitot-static system. The only way that I know to defeat it is to reach out and put your finger over the pitot tube, a not too easy manuver. Are there other ways John? A good pilot could get a Frog in and out of a zone just as well as someone trying to do it by cheating the system. Hopefully once it was determined that using hover aft above 70 knots was detrimental to crew longevity, the practise stopped until the interlock was installed. The attitude of "I'll use it if I have to" probably wouldn't sit well with those that would have to fly the aircraft afterwards.

    Leave a comment:


  • jdullighan
    replied
    Hover Aft

    I think the mod was in 1969 and it definately was first in the 'D', so there were plenty of birds around without the interlock. When I got back to 'the world' in late '69, (I arrived Christmas Eve to temps of 10 degrees and snow, quite a shock to the kid still dressed in tropical uniform), I had some conversation with the guys in Engineering who were horrified to hear that pilots were still using Hover Aft above 70 knots even though there was a note in the Natops Manual not to do it. They clearly didn't understand combat pilots whose timeframe, if they were being shot at, was the next 60 seconds. I'll do whatever I need to do to get through that alive. I'll worry about anything else later, if there is a later. If using Hover Aft above 70 knots will help and the tail won't come off now, well then I'll use it.

    Welcome to the big bad world out there beyond Morton, Pa.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Reed
    replied
    Hover Aft

    John Dulligan said:
    Eventually an interlock was installed to ensure that the system could not be engaged above 70 knots. But there's a way to cheat that too.
    Since John is the resident CH-46 guru and my hero in that regard, I'll certainly bow to his expertise......Having said that, it must've been a "D" model mod and thereafter, 'cause we sure did it to a "faretheewell" with our "Alphas". Never worried as much about getting hit going into a "Hot" LZ, since we could be VERY fast and quick in that regard, but going out with any "big" load could be an issue. Never did figure how to make "hover Aft" help us there! LOL!

    Leave a comment:


  • jdullighan
    replied
    Hover aft

    Hover aft was a system that caused the rotor heads to rotate rearwards. Its purpose was to change the attitude of the aircraft into a nose down attitude. Without it, the aircraft would have ended up very nose high late in the approach and would have needed full forward stick. It was engaged manually by a switch on the center console (I think) and was not supposed to be engaged above 70 knots.

    But it was quickly discoved that it was a fabulous speed brake, engaging it at cruise speed caused a very rapid decrease in speed and combined with a 'buttonhook' enabled a very rapid approuch. However it didn't do a lot for airframe life. Telling pilots not to engage it above 70 knots didn't have much effect, "If I need it, I'll use it" was the most common answer I heard. Eventually an interlock was installed to ensure that the system could not be engaged above 70 knots. But there's a way to cheat that too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wayne Stafford
    replied
    Hover Aft

    The heads do program back but it also gives a better field of view during the flare. As explained to me by a pilot whose hover aft failed, without it you end up with the cyclic back against your spleen. In this situation, should the hover aft then kick in, you have to avoid the oncoming backflip. After repairing said hover aft (failed 40 knot relay), the pilot agreed to test hop the plane once I agreed to ride along. The test was done at 5,000 feet just east of MMAF.

    Wayne Stafford
    HMM-265 69-rotate-69/70

    Leave a comment:


  • Top A
    replied
    Hover Aft was a way to program the aft head to bite more on approaching and/or landing, it could act like a speed brake for those pilots who knew how it was suppose to work. it was mostly in 'A' models but a few 'D's has it. If we has a small LZ we used the hoist and/or a spire rig or chopped off branches.

    Leave a comment:


  • accs
    replied
    "Hover Aft"

    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]Top A

    Please explain to those that are not familiar with "Hover Aft" is so that those that are new to the board or not familiar with the H-46 and what it had to do in RVN at Pinnacle LZ's where they were too big for the zone but just enough clearance was available to "Hover Aft".
    [/SIZE][/FONT]

    Leave a comment:


  • gnftr44
    replied
    I'll save judgement until I see a MV-22 go into a hot zone at 40 knots, touch down and depart in seconds.

    I don't suppose they have "hover aft" do they?
    Not familiar w/"hover aft" but proprotors can be rotated 7.5 degrees aft of vertical to aid w/deceleration. My impression is that they can decelerate and accelerate much quicker than a helo. Given proproter/nacelle movement of 8 deg/second, they can be at 200 plus knots in around 20 seconds.

    Leave a comment:


  • TOM COLLINS
    replied
    Has the defensive weapons issue been resolved? Back in the mid-80's when I was the MAG 26 Ordnance NCOIC and the operational study was sent around for chop, the answer to my question about "where are the guns" was that problem will be addressed later. Last I heard there still wasn't a fix.

    Leave a comment:


  • Top A
    replied
    Hover Aft, Hell they can't auto. 53's did go into hot LZ's at least in 72 they did. I also have concerns abut that acft and rotor wash in LZ's, all the trash its throws up? Can we put more than 1 in at a time

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Constantine
    started a topic MV-22 and "HOT LZ's"

    MV-22 and "HOT LZ's"

    Does the Marine Corps plan on taking the MV-22 into hot LZ's to do medivacs, emergency ammo resupply etc like the 46's in RVN?

    I was an eyewitness to what the 46's went through. I'm having great difficulty attempting to visualize a MV-22 attempting a high speed approach and departure being accompanied by a fusillade of small arms fire, RPG's, and the off .50 Cal thrown into the mix.

    In my memory, I recollect that 53's were absolutely barred from going anywhere near a hot zone in RVN.

    I'll save judgement until I see a MV-22 go into a hot zone at 40 knots, touch down and depart in seconds.

    I don't suppose they have "hover aft" do they?
Working...
X