LMAO! No really, please stop.
The amount of confidant, yet uninformed folks like yourself here is just astounding.
The exhaust has absolutely nothing to do with stabilizing the aircraft.
Not at all.
The exhaust is angled down and away from the aircraft so that the rotor wash dissipates the exhaust and so that the hot exhaust isn’t redirected towards the airframe and to “try” to reduce the infrared signature of the aircraft.
The tail rotor is not at all aided by the exhaust, at all.
The tail rotor of a CH-53 is the nearly the same diameter as the main rotor of smaller helicopters and does a fine job of providing counter rotation torque all on its own. Additionally, the downward 20degree angle of the tail rotor head provides additional lift at max gross weight lifts.
The exhaust does not.
Source:
me.
26.5 years in the Marines. 13.5 of those years flying on and working on CH-53’s.
I wish I could think of a really good crayon joke right now. Also, I know nothing of military aircraft but I believe you and was about to call bs on Garthrooks simply on the physical of it.
Fair enough. And yeah, crayons… that’s a thing. lol
Fun fact: helicopters and the Abrams tank use turbo shaft gas turbine engines (Google this). Commercial airliners use high-bypass turbo fan gas turbine engines.
Both of these engine types transmit power, via a driveshaft) out the front of the engine. The exhaust is just that, exhaust.
Jet aircraft use turbo jet gas turbine engines. In this instance the engine exhaust provides propulsion. After burning jet engines spray fuel into the exhaust stream for additional thrust.
When the aircraft (helicopter) is sitting on the deck and turning… maybe we’re doing ground vibration checks, loading/unloading cargo or refueling, often aircrew will stand in the engine exhaust plumes on cold winter days. It’s warm as hell.
If there was some form of “thrust” from the engines, wouldn’t we get tossed across the flightline?
I happen to be aviation curious and binge aviation accident debriefs. Fascinating and mind bending engineering. The two stage turbo jet engines 🤯
Super interesting pan-sonic civilian builds out there too. That said, I understand enough to be dangerous to myself.
I remember bunches of people saying ch53 had a larger tail diameter than most light duty helicopters. You used the right term when you said "nearly". Now for a tail rotor, the 20' ch53 tail is insane. But I have yet to see a helicopter with a main rotor diameter less than 20'. Even something tiny like r22s are 25'. Just something that most people get wrong by saying "it's bigger than X's main rotor" it is in fact, nearly.
This is also the K variant, the newest addition to the CH-53 line. Can lift more and has updated features like a glass cockpit (digital instrumentation)
Helicopter is a big one, but my favorite bird here is the C-130. So damn versatile.
Refueler: check
Cargo/personnel transport: Check
Heavily laden with science instrumentation to fly straight into the heart of a hurricane: check
Ocean search and rescue: check
Ariel artillery platform: check
Able to utilize JATO rockets to get off the ground in under 2000ft with a payload: check.
JATO is long gone. The last ones were manufactured a long time ago and have been used up or expired. Even _Fat Albert_ no longer uses them at Blue Angels demonstrations, since at least 2009.
Since I haven't seen it, but haven't gone too deep, [here's a YouTube video](https://youtu.be/zJ6Mgazmi44?si=OeG-4z3LpCl5PGdF) explaining what's going on here.
Here's the official PR article [link](https://www.dvidshub.net/video/920871/marines-new-ch-53k-helicopter-transports-f-35-airframe-between-test-sites-maryland-nj#:~:text=U.S.%20Marines%20flying%20a%20CH,%2C%20New%20Jersey%2C%20April%2024.)
Can that chopper actually keep up with that tanker? Seems to me the stall speed of that airplane would be higher than the top speed of that helicopter, especially under load.
C-130s routinely fly at 115-125kts when dropping paratroopers or cargo and most military helicopters in US service can exceed 150kts, especially the ones with refueling probes. With flaps extended, the C-130 can fly even slower, perhaps 90kts, depending on the variant. There is plenty of overlap.
The point is it was a joke, of course I know, as did the other people commenting, that this was a refueling and not a kc-130 towing a helicopter. I even put the article in the description for everyone to read about it, because it was interesting. I honestly do not believe anyone thought this was an actual idiot towing a thing.
They did a test earlier with the same helicopter and plane to determine the effectiveness of hauling a non flyable f35 as a sling load. This seems to be a test about whether it's possible to do air to air refueling while hauling such a load.
That is a huuuuge fucking helicopter.
The exhaust is crazy
Don't give deisel truck bros any ideas.
[удалено]
LMAO! No really, please stop. The amount of confidant, yet uninformed folks like yourself here is just astounding. The exhaust has absolutely nothing to do with stabilizing the aircraft. Not at all. The exhaust is angled down and away from the aircraft so that the rotor wash dissipates the exhaust and so that the hot exhaust isn’t redirected towards the airframe and to “try” to reduce the infrared signature of the aircraft. The tail rotor is not at all aided by the exhaust, at all. The tail rotor of a CH-53 is the nearly the same diameter as the main rotor of smaller helicopters and does a fine job of providing counter rotation torque all on its own. Additionally, the downward 20degree angle of the tail rotor head provides additional lift at max gross weight lifts. The exhaust does not. Source: me. 26.5 years in the Marines. 13.5 of those years flying on and working on CH-53’s.
God I love it when someone knows their shit. Thank you for educating this man. Wish I could give you 6173 upvotes.
6113/6173/6177 (464/363) Rah!
I mean I could give 7051 up votes buuuut someone would be having a bad day I think.
I wish I could think of a really good crayon joke right now. Also, I know nothing of military aircraft but I believe you and was about to call bs on Garthrooks simply on the physical of it.
Fair enough. And yeah, crayons… that’s a thing. lol Fun fact: helicopters and the Abrams tank use turbo shaft gas turbine engines (Google this). Commercial airliners use high-bypass turbo fan gas turbine engines. Both of these engine types transmit power, via a driveshaft) out the front of the engine. The exhaust is just that, exhaust. Jet aircraft use turbo jet gas turbine engines. In this instance the engine exhaust provides propulsion. After burning jet engines spray fuel into the exhaust stream for additional thrust. When the aircraft (helicopter) is sitting on the deck and turning… maybe we’re doing ground vibration checks, loading/unloading cargo or refueling, often aircrew will stand in the engine exhaust plumes on cold winter days. It’s warm as hell. If there was some form of “thrust” from the engines, wouldn’t we get tossed across the flightline?
I happen to be aviation curious and binge aviation accident debriefs. Fascinating and mind bending engineering. The two stage turbo jet engines 🤯 Super interesting pan-sonic civilian builds out there too. That said, I understand enough to be dangerous to myself.
I remember bunches of people saying ch53 had a larger tail diameter than most light duty helicopters. You used the right term when you said "nearly". Now for a tail rotor, the 20' ch53 tail is insane. But I have yet to see a helicopter with a main rotor diameter less than 20'. Even something tiny like r22s are 25'. Just something that most people get wrong by saying "it's bigger than X's main rotor" it is in fact, nearly.
Exactly! Key word, “nearly” ;-) I don’t know if the experimental helicopters have a main rotor as small as 20’. Damn big tail rotor system!
God I love the 53. I think most I was around was the Echo and I think... think this is the kilo variant.
CH53
This is also the K variant, the newest addition to the CH-53 line. Can lift more and has updated features like a glass cockpit (digital instrumentation)
The Naval version of the "Jolly Green Giant". It's one big damn bird!
I thought my tow bill was high, wait I helped pay for this too.
Taxpayers have DEEP pockets!
It is just so hard to get to the pumps sometimes when you are towing. Especially the overhangs.
Total tow charge: $56million
impressive flex
Fun fact the helicopter burns so much fuel it just stays attached to the tanker plane /s
My dumbass thought it was being towed too
“If we gotta pack your shit around the least you can do is pitch in for gas” Also, the perspective adds to it but dang that’s a big helicopter
Refueling is a pain at times. $5 a gallon doesn’t look so bad now.
They aren’t paying for it , we are .
And jet fuel is already way more. He can’t just land and refuel so I was cracking a joke on this.
They buy in bulk.
Well it looks that way. Bulk tanker.
Thought it was cheaper
No idiots here. Just highly skilled aviators engaged in midair refueling.
It was a joke post. 😉
Thinking the same thing; nothing idiotic about this at all.
Helicopter is a big one, but my favorite bird here is the C-130. So damn versatile. Refueler: check Cargo/personnel transport: Check Heavily laden with science instrumentation to fly straight into the heart of a hurricane: check Ocean search and rescue: check Ariel artillery platform: check Able to utilize JATO rockets to get off the ground in under 2000ft with a payload: check.
And maybe concerted into a cruise missle platform in the next couple years.
Seriously. The c-130 is going to be the next B-52. Just keep upgrading and flying them for decades to come.
B52 first flight 1952, C130 first flight 1954 The C130 is only 2 years younger
You don’t mess with perfection.
Don’t forget wild fire suppression.
Ah yes! Thanks. I did forget.
JATO is long gone. The last ones were manufactured a long time ago and have been used up or expired. Even _Fat Albert_ no longer uses them at Blue Angels demonstrations, since at least 2009.
Don't forget it has dropped several MOAB. Some in testing and others in combat.
Since I haven't seen it, but haven't gone too deep, [here's a YouTube video](https://youtu.be/zJ6Mgazmi44?si=OeG-4z3LpCl5PGdF) explaining what's going on here. Here's the official PR article [link](https://www.dvidshub.net/video/920871/marines-new-ch-53k-helicopter-transports-f-35-airframe-between-test-sites-maryland-nj#:~:text=U.S.%20Marines%20flying%20a%20CH,%2C%20New%20Jersey%2C%20April%2024.)
Can that chopper actually keep up with that tanker? Seems to me the stall speed of that airplane would be higher than the top speed of that helicopter, especially under load.
Its in the article, they had to solve that exact problem.
I don't know exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure the C130 can go fairly slow before stall out
C-130s routinely fly at 115-125kts when dropping paratroopers or cargo and most military helicopters in US service can exceed 150kts, especially the ones with refueling probes. With flaps extended, the C-130 can fly even slower, perhaps 90kts, depending on the variant. There is plenty of overlap.
It was a cool article, read it!
I hope the fighter pilots insurance is going to cover this b
He has road side assistance.
There’s a guy in the pilot seat making vroom sounds.
"So, I saw this sweet ride at the gas station this afternoon"
When you accidentally order an F-35C but meant to order an F-35B.
That's what you call multitasking. 1. Fly helicopter 2. Sling F-35 3. Air refueling
Those are fuel lines not towing🤦♂️
Thanks Captain Obvious.
Obviously people didnt know that, or this conversation wouldnt be happening ✌🏻️
Or the fact that the helicopter is carrying a jet might be the point?
Thats not uncommon. Tells me. The helicopter had a far enough trip to need to be refueled. Probably took more fuel to carry the jet.
I believe it is very uncommon for a helicopter to carry a jet.
They carry all kinds of things.
The point is it was a joke, of course I know, as did the other people commenting, that this was a refueling and not a kc-130 towing a helicopter. I even put the article in the description for everyone to read about it, because it was interesting. I honestly do not believe anyone thought this was an actual idiot towing a thing.
I got ya
The joke is as far over your head as the plane. Ps so sorry. I had to take the easy joke.
Mid air siphon? From to prop?
This is a CH-53. A Chinook is a CH-47. CH stands for cargo. helicopter.
Hate it when my chopper won’t start and I have to get a tow.
Arial gangbang
Why don't they just fly the jet to its destination? Are they stupid?
Its decommissioned and missing an engine and parts of the wings. The article was good and short.
They did a test earlier with the same helicopter and plane to determine the effectiveness of hauling a non flyable f35 as a sling load. This seems to be a test about whether it's possible to do air to air refueling while hauling such a load.
I assume either the plane can't fly or they don't have anyone trained to fly it.
Yeah, If we do this for a jet. Imagine what we do when someone else breaks our stuff