Viper has been the unofficial official nickname for the F-16. Nobody calls it the “Fighting Falcon” except some PAO geek in the Pentagon. I don’t know if the AH-Z will be called Viper or not.
Noisy Cricket - wasn’t that the gun Will Smith used in Ben In Black?
Ladybug - the F/A-18E/F?
Battle Hamster - I’m thinking it would have to be as cannon laden as a B-17 to bestowed this title of Battle-anything. But I like the hamster suffix.
VMX-22 stood up in addition to VMMT-204. 204 is still there and will start training shortly if they haven’t already. The first HMM to transition to VMM has already stood down to start the process.
Most of the squadron designation stuff has been aswered but I’ll expend a few saved rounds. As stated the HMMs transitioning to the V-22 will be VMMs and keep the same number so it stands to reason the HML/As might eventually become VML/As if they operated light (Huey) and attack (AH) - you could do a wide body version too for the light. Or you could just go VMA. Before we combined UHs and AHs in the same squadron we had HMLs and HMAs. Interestingly they were combined because the AH-1J and UH-1N used the same drivetrain and the Marine Corps could cut the number of mechanics in half. Since that time the airframes have grown apart. The AH-1W has very little in common with the UH-1N but we staff the squadrons like they did.
West Coast and reserve squadrons use HMLA whereas the East Coast squadrons use HML/A. East Coast uses the slash to emphasize that we are talking about two different missions (light and attack) and not a reduced attack capability (light attack).
For the numbering system, the 1st number is the Marine airwing where the squadron first stood up, the 2d number is the 2d digit of the Marine Aircraft Group where the squadron first stood up, and the third digit is for the number of the squadron in that group. HML/A-167 was commissioned as HML-167 in Vietnam (1st MAW), MAG-16, as the 7th squadron in MAG 16. HMM-161 was orginally the 1st squadron in 1st MAW, MAG-16. As squadrons, groups and even wings moved locations the numbers don’t match up anymore. For example, MAG-39 is now 3rd MAW vice 1st MAW. So there has never been a 39X but there could be now. This system applies to most helicopter squadrons the noted exception being some of the HMH squadrons (461, 466, etc) - some of them trace their lineage back to WWII era fixed wing squadrons.
As far as what to use, that’s tough - If you chose to commission a new squadron and if you went with the above you would have to use 26X, 29,X, or 39X since all of the active HMLAs are in 2d MAW MAG-26 and 29 or 3d MAW MAG-39. 1st MAW doesn’t really own squadrons per say, they just rotate through. Between tours with 1st MAW, 2d MAW, and 3d MAW, MAG-16, 26, and 36(?) are already up to nine in the three digits (169, 269 and 369) and you probably don’t want to use four digits by added a two digit tenth squadron, I would suggest using 291 (1st squadron commissioned under MAG-29, 2d MAW) or 391 (1st squadron of MAG-39, 3d MAW). I don’t belive that any squadrons stood up under MAG-29 - all of the squadrons in 29 now were commissioned before MAG-29 stood up. Same with MAG-39.
I know all the above is confusing if you look at where the squadrons are now but think about who they fell under when they were first commissioned.
Personally, I don’t like the fact that we are going with the V for the Osprey - I would have retained the H. Along those lines I would go with HMFA-291. I like the HMFA because I would assume that this thing would have air-to-air and in the AH-1W we used to practice air-air as much as the F/a-18 guys used to practice attack. Of course the focus has changed now for everyone. I also say go with 291 vice 391 because the West Coast has four HMLAs compared to two HML/As on the East Coast so I would hope the next squadron goes east.
Years ago I started to graft a 1/72 V-22 onto a 1/48 OV-10. Didn’t look too hard but I got sidetracked.
I did a simliar project turning a Naboo Star Wars fighter into an HMFA-367 VTOL. Tongue-in-cheek I dressed it up like the Marine Corps would have it. I added skids, and the same old flare/chaff, and ALQ-144 in place of R2D2 (we could never afford one of those). Here is a link to it on ARC:
http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/Gal1/401-500/gal410_Naboo_Smith/gal410.htm
Good morning Supercobra and thank you very much for taking the time out to respond. I know you’re busy and we all appreciate that very detailed and useful information. It’s not too much to process and that is exactly what we were looking for.
BTW - Nice Naboo fighter! That could even be a Hornet replacement.
Since I’m moving a week from tomorrow, the only modeling related activity I’m doing is research and working on whatever graphics I’ve got in progress. I’ve started decal artwork for my Dimondback (what I’m calling it today) and may try to get something posted this weekend.
More good scoop, thanks, supercobra! Funny how 3MARDIV/1MAW get their strength from stateside units but we’re still considered to have three full divisions and air wings on active duty.
I’m waiting on my order to be filled at GreatModels, so I’m still in the brainstorming stage as well. I was driving to Raliegh the other day trying to think through how to scratch a couple (???) of rotary launchers for my planned internal bay.
Maybe I’ll go with Sea Serpent or Sea Viper as a nickname…or maybe a shark name would be more appropriate? Something to mull over while I mow the lawn.
Sure, but I’ll warn you that I am not a propulsion engineer, so you may get what you pay for. The max speed you can get out of a propeller aircraft is related to the tip speed of the props. As the tips near the speed of sound thier efficiency drops significantly. So the idea with the curved blades on the C-130J is to sweep the blades (like swept wings) to reduce the tip speed. the blades are very thin composites to provide good high speed drag characteristics and there are six blades to reduce the loading on each blade so the thin structure can handle the loads. This may not apply the helos, since they may be more limited by retreating blade stall than tip speed, but you will note that lots of helos these days have swept tips. The curved blades would probably be appropriate to a tiltrotor though, since I imagine they would experience tip speed issues in aircraft mode. Counter-rotating rotors would probably work, but I’m not sure what the sizing rules are for this sort of thing. I’ll have to ask around. Similar for the number of blades. I don’t think there are any reason why not to have more blades, but it would be harder to fold them all I suppose. BTW, my design won’t have folding wings either, but after careful analysis ( read rationalization) I decided since it’s the same size as a Harrier, which doesn’t fold either, then it will work OK aboard a ship.
Good questions, I may have to do a little research on this.
Supercobra, thanks for the detailed explanation, excellent info.
Phil
“Get what i pay for.” - then I should get a job in procurement at the Pentagon!
D’oh - I forgot about retreating blade stall - I wonder if having two rotor discs (and making sure the blades rotate in a manner that keeps the retreating sides over the wing) would offset the loss of lift from the retreating blades? You’re probably right about folding being the reason for the number of blades. I think the Sea King had 5 blades at least - I need to verify that and see if that could work.
I haven’t sized mine yet to see how it fits - the wingspan will be wider than yours but I I think the shorter fuselage length could offset that.
Thanks for all the added info and clarification, supercobra. Very intersting description on how all of our squadrons got there names – I had never heard of that before!
I tend to agree with you on retaining the H versus the V for a squadron designator for the Ospreys. Someone probably decided on V because it’s sexier, and it’s a fast bird, but, you’re never going to see that thing take off or land (non-emergency) unless it’s in some form of helicopter mode! [;)]
For all the non-wing folders, remember, deck and hangar space on the ship is truly at a premium. Think of how you’re going to outfit the LHAs or LHDs. Will they purely be devoted to V-22s and escorts? Or will they share room with a detachment of AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys too? Maybe think about at least a blade-fold mechanism, because these things have to travel up and down the ship’s aircraft elevators as well.
At least blade fold is on my mind. I looked at the Bronco’s wing next to an Osprey’s and not counting the nacelles, they’re almost exactly the same span. In fact, the bronco has more wing since it has a narrow fuselage. The overall space taken up by my design right now is just under that of an F-35B. Rotating the wing 90 degrees can’t happen as I don’t think there’s enough space in the fuselage to outfit the mechanics of it. And wing fold is out of the question since there’s a cross-shaft (On second thought - maybe not - they fold the tails on SH-3s and SH-60s. Could that work here I wonder?) I think there’s a way I can fold the tail up, and over the fuselage to save space.
Going to hit the hoppy shop looking for more donor parts today. Mac - Got your message and roger that.
Trigger-
With counter rotating rotors, retreating blade stall is not much of an issue. That is a fringe benefit when you use a tandem rotor, the advancing blade on one side counters the retreating blade on the other. I would recommend the blades rotating to center so that the advancing blade is off the end of the wing.
Mine doesn’t have wing fold capability yet. I am considering a non-Marine version anyway but I haven’t decided yet.
Supercobra-
Would HMMA work?
Yup, that was exactly what I was thinking.
I’ll see y’all in a couple of weeks. I start BNOC tomorrow[:(], so if anyone is around Columbia, SC near the dark side of Ft. Jackson, wave on the way by.
Mac
Bye Mac! And FYI - Saturday’s LHS run was a success.
Alright, I’m going to start up a seperate thread for this build, but I thought I’d share with you guys the first progress shots of my AV-22 gunship. It’s not much, but it’s a start:
From nose to tail, I’m planning on putting the following 1) 7.62mm minigun 2) .50 cal HMG 3) 20mm Busmaster cannon 4) .50 cal HMG 5) 7.62mm minigun
Another option would be to pair up the .50’s in slot 3 and put two 20mm cannon (one each) in slot 2 and 4. What do you think?
Here I used a technique that HeavyArty described. I found a can of Terra Cotta paint at Lowe’s and used it to put down some non-skid surface on my interior. It really has a nice, rough feel to it and it went on easy.
HMMA (Marine Medium Attack Helicopter Squadron) would be possible in that the USMC could decide to put V-22s and a BA-609 varient or some other titl-rotor type platform in the same squadron if they had a lot of components in common. Just like they did with Hueys and Cobras. Would it work? In my opinion no. Too much philosophy/training difference and too big of a difference in mission to make that combination successfull.
Lemon, that looks awesome. I like the terra cotta too. I’ll have to pick some up for myself.
As for the armament layout, I like your second option better. I’d go with that.
Before I packed away all my kits over the weekend [BH] I assembled the fuselage of my Bronco. I used a 1/48 Monogram AH-1F cockpit tub thay my dog got a hold of (minimal damage, and I’m going to refinish it anyway) to replace the POS kit parts and attached 1/72 V-22 sponsons just aft of the rear seat. I then placed 1/48 AH-64 sponsons in front of those and I’ll blend the two together later. The Apache sponsons actually extend out past the nose of the Bronco so I’ll have some work to do there as well. But that’s fine and now I have a place to put the FLIR and radar radome. Test fitting the wing and nacelle, I think I’ll be able to take the Apache’s stub wings and attach them to the Osprey sponsons just abouve the wheel well for carrying weapons. Plus I’ve got room for 1-2 stations under the main wing (yes, they should work in forward flight). So this thing will have teeth! [tup]
I doubt I’ll have time to get ny pictures up but believe me when I say that this thing is now [censored]-ugly!
I’ll be looking forward to some photos of this beast when you get all settled into your new digs, Trigger! So far, it sounds pretty mean.
Wow, sounds like some serious surgery there, post some pics when you can.
I like all the weapons stations, something mine may be lacking. I have been working on the cockpit/interior, will try to post some pics when I have some progress to show.
Phil
Slight tangent - since my modeling stuff’s boxed up, that leaves me my computer and break time. Here’s what I’ve been messing around with as far as markings are concerned…
Thursday a.m. note: against my better judgement, I broke out the box containing my abomination unto the gods of flight and snapped a couple of quick pix this a.m. and will post them when I get back home. Don’t eat before looking at them.
Thanks for the warning, but really, how bad could it be?
I hope I’m not eating those words while I clean off my monitor and keyboard later…
