VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

Message
Author
Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17203
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#21 Post by Boac » Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:32 am

'Elf and Safety would go berserk! Two guys just standing there while this potentially uncontrollable machine full of aviation fuel prances around a few feet away!

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#22 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:37 am

Boac wrote:
Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:32 am
'Elf and Safety would go berserk! Two guys just standing there while this potentially uncontrollable machine full of aviation fuel prances around a few feet away!
=))

Almost as dangerous as me in the R44, which is perfectly controllable, but whose pad is right next to the fuel pumps. I try not to think about such things and concentrate very hard on getting away from the pumps and the rubber neckers (who don't appreciate what a terrible danger I am to them) ASAP! :))
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#23 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:42 pm

Bell also produced the Bell X-22...
The maiden flight of the prototype occurred on 17 March 1966. In contrast to other tilt-rotor craft (such as the Bell XV-3), transitions between hovering and horizontal flight succeeded nearly immediately. However, interest increased more towards VTOL and V/STOL properties, not the specific design of the prototype.

Due to failure of a propeller control, described by test pilot Stanley Kakol as the only non-redundant component in the power chain, the prototype crashed on 8 August 1966 and technicians stripped it for components in order to make the second prototype flight capable. The fuselage was still used as a simulator for some time afterwards.

The second X-22 first flew on 26 August 1967. Early that year, it was equipped with a variable flight control and stabilizer system from Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, which improved flight performance. Although the X-22 was considered to be the best aircraft of its type at the time, the program was canceled. The required maximum speed of 525 km/h was never reached. The second prototype was moved to Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory for further testing; the last flight occurred in 1988. Although the ducted fan propellers were considered usable, they were not used again on a US military aircraft until the F-35B.
Bell X-22

Bell X-22.JPG
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#24 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:22 pm

Another promising design that didn't make the cut was the Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) XC-142..

Ling-Temco-Voight.JPG
The Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) XC-142 was a tri-service tiltwing experimental aircraft designed to investigate the operational suitability of vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) transports. An XC-142A first flew conventionally on 29 September 1964, and on 11 January 1965, it completed its first transitional flight by taking off vertically, changing to forward flight and finally landing vertically. Its service sponsors pulled out of the program one by one, and it eventually ended due to a lack of interest after demonstrating its capabilities successfully....

The basic design was fairly typical for a cargo aircraft, consisting of a large boxy fuselage with a tilted rear area featuring a loading ramp. It had a wingspan of 67 ft (20 m) and was 58 ft (18 m) long overall. The fuselage housed a 30 ft (9.1 m) long, 7.5 ft (2.3 m) wide 7 ft (2.1 m) high cargo area with a somewhat boxy cockpit on the front for the crew of two pilots and a loadmaster. The wing was high-mounted and the tail surfaces were a "semi-T-tail" to keep the rear area clear during loading. Tricycle landing gear were used, with the main legs retracting into blisters on the fuselage sides. In normal parked configuration it would appear to be a conventional cargo plane.

For V/STOL operations, the aircraft "converted" by tilting its wing to the vertical. Roll control during hover was provided by differential clutching of the propellers, while yaw used the ailerons, which were in the airflow. For pitch control the aircraft featured a separate tail rotor, oriented horizontally to lift the tail, as opposed to the more conventional anti-torque rotors on helicopters that are mounted vertically. When on the ground, the tail rotor folded against the tail to avoid being damaged during loading. The wing could be rotated to 100 degrees, past vertical, in order to hover in a tailwind.

The C-142 was powered by four General Electric T64 turboshaft engines cross-linked on a common driveshaft, which eliminated engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations, to drive four 15.5-foot (4.7 m) Hamilton Standard fiberglass propellers. Compared to conventional designs it was overpowered: it had 0.27 hp/lb, compared to 0.12 hp/lb for the contemporary Lockheed C-130D Hercules. This extra power was required for safe VTOL operations, and gave the aircraft excellent all-around performance which included a maximum speed of over 400 mph (640 km/h), making it one of the fastest VTOL transport aircraft of the era.
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
Ex-Ascot
Test Pilot
Test Pilot
Posts: 13095
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
Gender:
Age: 68

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#25 Post by Ex-Ascot » Wed Mar 30, 2022 12:44 pm

Don't really want to start a new thread for this. Great concept and idea but how often in the Lake District would the weather be good enough for this.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... nutes.html
'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17203
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#26 Post by Boac » Wed Mar 30, 2022 6:24 pm

I've sent the video to my No1 son who does rescue in The Borders but warned him I cannot offer any dual =))

Great idea.

G-CPTN
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7593
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:22 pm
Location: Tynedale
Gender:
Age: 79

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#27 Post by G-CPTN » Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:43 am


User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#28 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Thu Mar 31, 2022 4:48 am

Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#29 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Thu Mar 31, 2022 7:09 am

Reverting to the tilt rotor concept here is the aircraft that lit C16's fire, see: viewtopic.php?p=329643#p329643. It truly was the father of the V-22 Osprey. It is a pity he didn't get a chance to fly it. He would have been in a long queue mind you, apparently senior US officers from all services were keen to have a go and Bell were only too happy to accommodate them in pursuit of political leverage in their marketing campaign for the tilt rotor militarily, and commercially.

Bell XV-15.JPG

History of the XV-15
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#30 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:50 pm

viewtopic.php?p=329643#p329643


Reverting to C16's post and this comment...
Edit: Back in 1980 I was at the Bell Fort Worth factory accepting a machine and spent the day at their test facility at Arlington. I was able to sit in the XV-15 cockpit - the forerunner of the Osprey. There was a spring loaded switch for the nacelles which had two markings - back was for the hover mode and forward for 'airplane' mode. To go from hover to airplane you just pushed the switch to the airplane extremity and the speed of rotation of the nacelles made for a smooth transition. The transition back to the hover had a wide airspeed bracket. The simplicity appealed to me. Sadly because it was a test vehicle they wouldn't let me try it out in flight!
I was apt to see how this worked on the V-22. The nacelle movement is controlled by the pilot using a thumb operated "nacelle control thumb wheel" on the thrust control lever (collective throttle). I assume it guarded/aided by the the flight computer but seems very accessible and easy to use (see item 8 on the list below).

Nacelle.JPG
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

FedEx Express to Test Elroy VTOL for Autonomous Middle Mile Cargo Delivery

#31 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:54 pm

This is the way of the future folks...
FedEx Express, the regional subsidiary of FedEx Corp., has a new partnership agreement with Elroy Air aimed at flight-testing their autonomous vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) air cargo system for middle-mile logistics operations by 2023.

Elroy Air revealed its pre-production vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft, the Chaparral—which could become the first end-to-end autonomous VTOL air cargo system—in January. Headquartered in San Francisco, the startup has received funding from Catapult Ventures, Lockheed Martin Ventures, Marlinspike Capital, and Prosperity7 Ventures, in addition to various angel investors.

The new agreement between the two companies is a “first of its kind agreement,” according to the March 30 announcement from FedEx Express, which plans to test the Chaparral’s ability to fly shipments between its various sortation facilities. Joe Stephens, senior vice president of engineering and technology at FedEx Express, in the announcement said the air cargo operator was “built on innovation and we are always looking toward new technologies to help enhance the logistics industry through improved safety, efficiency and customer service.”

Chaparral is being developed with a hybrid-electric architecture and an in-flight rechargeable lithium battery to be capable of carrying cargo weighing up to 500 pounds with a maximum range of 300 miles. An early prototype of Elroy’s Chaparral was first flown in 2019. Today, the model possesses eight vertical lift fans, four distributed electric propulsors, and updated systems for ground autonomy and cargo handling.

FedEx Express is the second regional carrier to express interest in future operations of Chaparral, after signing an agreement with Mesa Airlines for a future purchase of up to 150 aircraft. Kofi Asante, Elroy Air’s vice president of business development, said the company is ready to help FedEx build “the next generation of express logistics. When you’re not limited by challenging infrastructure, traffic, or airports, logistics can reach more people, faster than ever before.”

Elroy Air first began working with FedEx in January 2020, and will continue to pursue certifications toward a goal of beginning flight-testing of the Chaparral for middle-mile logistics operations in 2023.
- From Aviation.news.com
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: VTOL - Blot on the throttle

#32 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:27 am

TheGreenGoblin wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 4:31 pm
Boac wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 4:09 pm
The collective controls the pitch. Pull and the pitch increases. Push down and the pitch decreases. The throttle is a twist on the end of the collective lever. If you pull the collective up you need to twist the throttle anti clockwise to ensure the ERPM and thus RRPM is maintained as the pitch increases and the other way if you push down
I'm actually familiar with that! I didn't realise the R44 was that simple with a sort of 'auto-throttle. :))

It appears, surely, that calling the thing on the Osprey a 'collective' is a misnomer?
Absolutely. In fact it was called something rude in honour of the Boeing manager who insisted it worked the way it did. I'll fish the story out and post it here when I get home.
I realise that I never did post the story of how Blot managed to royally screw up what is basically a helicopter collective by making it operate like a throttle. As my in-box has just been full of PM's asking for details 8-| on this fascinating subject, I shall elucidate further here... :)) It might at least be of interest to the helicopter pilots here and the lone ex-Harrier jockey!

Harold W. Blot is an interesting pilot in his own right and his CV can be found here - http://epnaao.com/BIOS_files/REGULARS/B ... ld%20W.pdf

Suffice it to say that during his period as a test pilot, after initial training as an astronaut, he was sent to England by the Navy and the Marine Corps to evaluate the Harrier. It was primarily due to his enthusiasm for the aircraft that the Marines became interested in the aircraft and he joined the first Marine Corps Harrier Squadron where he wrote the book on operational tactics thereafter, and was critical in holding the Marine Corp line when McDonnell Douglas were developing AV-8B version of the Harrier for the Corps. After his 3 year stint doing the Harrier stuff he was consigned to a boring office job and desperate to get back to flying he sought other avenues of escape, but despite his reluctance was made programme director of the V-22 by the then secretary of the Navy, Lehman. Basically his job was to knock Boeing's and Bell's senior managers heads together to get the programme back on track, a task for which Blot, despite, but perhaps because of, his grim demeanour, was admirably suited to. Having got to fly the XV-15, Blot was hooked on the programme, but became too involved in the minutiae (typical fault in project and programme managers) and as a fixed wing pilot he insisted on the Osprey's collective working in the sense of a fixed winged aircraft's throttle, and despite protestations by the experts (i.e. the Bell helicopter men) he simply insisted that the V-22 was designed as it was, and that almost certainly was partially the cause of the accident that the threads above are related to.

Officially the throttle was called the thrust control lever, unofficially, although not to Blot's face, it was called "the Blottle!"

Blot.JPG
Blot wasn't a Boeing manager per se, although he managed both Boeing and Bell managers.
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#33 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:38 pm

The V-22 has had a number of accidents over the years but the Quantico crash came at very difficult time for the programme resulting in a lot of ammunition for political opponents as well as resulting an 11 month grounding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents ... -22_Osprey

http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investi ... 201992.pdf
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#34 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Sat Apr 16, 2022 7:51 pm

New US Navy V-22 variant not yet "operationally suitable!"
The U.S. Navy’s new version of the tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft designed for missions at sea isn’t yet “operationally suitable” because it has only “partially met reliability requirements,” according to the Pentagon’s testing office.

Among the problems: Its ice protection system “accounted for 25% of the operational mission failures, which will result in mission aborts,” the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation said in a non-public assessment marked “Controlled Unclassified Information” and obtained by Bloomberg News.

Otherwise, though, the test office found the CMV-22B Osprey is “operationally effective for carrier onboard delivery, medical evacuation, Naval Special Warfare support and search and rescue.”

The CMV-22B is a modified version of the widely used Marine Corps aircraft that lands and takes off like a helicopter and then flies like an airplane. It’s replacing the C-2A Greyhound, a nausea-inducing, claustrophobic aircraft first produced in 1965, to land cargo and people on aircraft carriers.

Spokespersons for Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing, which jointly produce the Osprey, referred questions to the Naval Air Systems Command.

The new aircraft “will provide the Navy with significant increases in capability and operational flexibility,” according to a fact sheet from the command.

A command spokesperson, Megan Wasel, asked about actions the Navy was taking to address the test assessment, said the aircraft had just completed its first operational deployment this month “and successfully proved” its value “as part of the U.S. Navy’s Air Wing of the Future. In the coming months, we will be reviewing this first deployment in its entirety and will implement key lessons learned, with the goal of improving readiness, reliability, and combat capability.”

The Navy has purchased all of the planned 44 aircraft, Wasel said.

Navy operational tests evaluated the aircraft from January 2021 until mid-July 2021, and it has flown in limited fleet operations. It didn’t meet a requirement for 75% operational availability or a metric to fly longer than 12.5 hours before an “operational mission failure,” according to the test office assessment.

The aircraft’s HF radio “which is required for over-the-horizon communications to support” Navy operations far from shore “was inconsistent, demonstrating a 12% success rate for long-range, two-way communications,” according to the report.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/202 ... 56546.html
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#35 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:01 am

TheGreenGoblin wrote:
Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:38 pm
The V-22 has had a number of accidents over the years but the Quantico crash came at very difficult time for the programme resulting in a lot of ammunition for political opponents as well as resulting an 11 month grounding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents ... -22_Osprey

http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investi ... 201992.pdf
17 month...
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

OneHungLow
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2140
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:28 pm
Location: Johannesburg
Gender:

Re: VTOL -Further crashes and deficiencies

#36 Post by OneHungLow » Mon Jul 24, 2023 6:29 pm

Known V-22 Gearbox Problem Caused Fatal June 2022 Crash

The U.S. Marine Corps has since 2010 known of a critical safety issue on its V-22 Osprey fleet---a gearbox flaw that can cause the tiltrotor’s clutch to slip, severely impacting the safety of flight.

For years, the Corps says it has trained its crews to be aware of and work around the issue. While the Air Force grounded its V-22 fleet last year because of the issue, the USMC kept flying, saying it is confident in the safety of its aircraft.

On June 8, 2022, a hard clutch engagement (HCE) hit a V-22 as it flew over the deserts of Southern California, causing the Osprey to violently crash and killing all five on board. Despite USMC claims that its crews could work around the issue, an investigation released July 21 states there was nothing the expert pilots could do. They could not have known that the problem was going to happen, and they did not have time to react.

Aviation Week reporting shows the newly released investigation was one of at least four such gearbox problems that occurred in serious crashes of both Marine Corps and U.S. Air Force V-22s last year. While the new accident investigation board report into the June 2022 incident states the HCE was the primarily cause of that crash, an investigation into another 2022 fatal MV-22 crash in Norway states a gearbox problem did occur but blamed that mishap on pilot error.

For the U.S. Air Force, at least two proprotor gearbox problems forced down V-22s, according to information on the Class A mishaps by Aviation Week---incidents defined as causing at least $2.5 million in damage or severe injuries or deaths. One high-profile incident in August 2022 in Norway prompted the Air Force to stand down its operations. This came after another incident on May 17, 2022. Investigations into these incidents have not been released, and there were multiple other similar incidents, including another USAF CV-22 forced to land on July 8, 2022, and an MV-22B experienced an engine fire while landing in October 2022.

While the Air Force stood down operations and was the first to commit to retrofitting the input quill assemblies of its fleet, the Marine Corps and Navy kept flying after the June 2022 crash in California.

The mishap crew was from the “Purple Foxes” of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 364 (VMM-364)---Capt. Nicholas P. Losapio, Capt. John J. Sax, Cpl. Nathan E. Carlson, Cpl. Seth D. Rasmuson and Lance Cpl. Evan A. Strickland.

According to the accident investigation board (AIB) report, the Osprey was one of two flying near Glamis, California, for a live-fire tail gun training mission from Camp Pendleton. After the third pass, the V-22 crew reported via radio it had “hot boxes,” meaning the aircraft’s gearboxes were running at a high temperature. The crew then climbed to a higher altitude to cool the gearboxes. After coming down for another weapons pass, the Osprey’s wingman lost visual of the V-22 during a turn because of the angle of bank. Seven seconds after the last radar contact, the V-22 crashed.

The AIB states the cause of the crash was a dual HCE, creating a single engine and interconnect drive system failure. This caused a “catastrophic loss of thrust” on the right proprotor, creating an unrecoverable departure from controlled flight.

“It is clear from the investigation that there was no error on the part of the pilots and aircrew and nothing they could have done to anticipate or prevent this mishap,” Headquarters Marine Corps says in a statement. “They were conducting routine flight operations in accordance with applicable regulations when this catastrophic and unanticipated mechanical failure occurred.”

In the statement the Marine Corps states it has since 2010 made “numerous actions associated with defining, mitigating or eliminating HCEs.”

In February, the V-22 Joint Program Office (PMA-275) announced the whole fleet would undergo input quill assembly (IQA) replacement even though the full root cause of the HCE has not been determined. The AIB report states IQAs are being replaced every 200 hours. Since then, there have been 22,258 flight hours with no reported HCE events.

“The completion of this investigation does not close the HCE effort within PMA-275,” says Col. Brian Taylor, PMA-275 program manager, in a statement. “The implemented IQA life limit, which reduced overall V-22 HCE risk by greater than 99 percent, was not a result of this investigation but is certainly reinforced by its findings.”

The HCE issue is one of 13 Category 1 deficiencies on the V-22 fleet, issues that are defined as possibly affecting safety of flight. The program office has declined to identify the other deficiencies.

After the grounding was first announced, Air Force Special Operations Command was the first command to look back at past V-22 mishaps to see if what is now understood about the HCE phenomena would have changed the findings. The Navy and Marine Corps followed suit. AFSOC said at the close of that investigation that what is known would not “materially” change---while HCEs could not completely be ruled out of some, it did not merit re-opening the investigations.

One of the most notable incidents was the April 2010 crash of an Air Force V-22 in Afghanistan that killed four and injured 16. The official account of the crash did not identify a main cause since key pieces of evidence, such as the flight data recorder and an entire engine, were missing << the crashed aircraft was bombed by A-10 aircraft in the combat zone in order to stop the aircraft wreckage falling into enemy hands>> However, then-AIB president Brig. Gen. Donald Harvel wrote there was an “abnormal engine response” and the proprotor’s speed was low when it attempted a rolling landing. AFSOC at the time disagreed with the findings, and issued a statement blaming the pilots.

Harvel, who retired shortly after and died in 2020, wrote his account of the investigation in a book titled Rotors in the Sand. In a chapter called “My Unofficial Opinion of What Really Happened,” Harvel wrote that gearbox problems were likely a cause.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... 2022-crash


Brig. Gen. Donald Harvel, the officer that headed up the Accident Investigation Board that reported on the crash that occurred in April 2010 of an Air Force V-22 in Afghanistan that killed four and injured 16, wrote a very good book, 'Rotors in the Sand', on that accident investigation. Sadly Harvel, who was also a senior civilian airline Captain in civilian life, died soon after his retirement and the publication of his book. I have read the book and recommend it to those that are interested in the chequered history of the V-22, and inter service rivalry, and official chicanery around the airworthiness of this aircraft.



How the V-22 was a poisoned chalice for Don Harvel
The observer of fools in military south and north...

PHXPhlyer
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8239
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:56 pm
Location: PHX
Gender:
Age: 69

Re: VTOL - Verbiage and Videos

#37 Post by PHXPhlyer » Mon Jul 24, 2023 7:35 pm

Read the article earlier this morning and found that my local library has an e-copy of the book. :-bd
Now on my too extensive reading list.

PP

Post Reply