Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

troops helping out in Donegal...

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

  • #16
    Some years ago in Clonmel during the annual flooding, the manager of a large retail chain who had recently opened a new store in a flood plain, came knocking on the gate of Kickham. He needed sandbags and people to fill them to protect his place of employment. It was Sunday morning. I understand the duty officer gave him empty bags and sent him on his way.....
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • #17
      DFTC Tpt & Engr Gp are on the way to north Donegal with an 80ft double single Bailey bridge for a culvert crossing that was washed away

      Comment


      • #18
        Jeez they are awfully behind. That bridge was washed away on the day, why has it taken so long to get a bridge from Kildare to Donegal for this? If it's the LA only recently deciding to get the bridge up, then they're morons. If it's the army, I can understand to be fair.
        I knew a simple soldier boy.....
        Who grinned at life in empty joy,
        Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
        And whistled early with the lark.

        In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
        With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
        He put a bullet through his brain.
        And no one spoke of him again.

        You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
        Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
        Sneak home and pray you'll never know
        The hell where youth and laughter go.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Buck View Post
          Jeez they are awfully behind. That bridge was washed away on the day, why has it taken so long to get a bridge from Kildare to Donegal for this....
          Why not use airlift?

          Assuming your Bridges come in sections the AW-139 should be able to move them - and to be frank, if they are too heavy you should ask a neighbour who has heavy airlift coming out of her arse...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ropebag View Post
            Why not use airlift?

            Assuming your Bridges come in sections the AW-139 should be able to move them - and to be frank, if they are too heavy you should ask a neighbour who has heavy airlift coming out of her arse...
            You have a point, Britain have not being shy in the past requesting repair crews from here after storms to help them restore power to areas effected.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ropebag View Post
              Why not use airlift?

              Assuming your Bridges come in sections the AW-139 should be able to move them - and to be frank, if they are too heavy you should ask a neighbour who has heavy airlift coming out of her arse...
              Don't chat. The lack of coordination is amazing (well, not really).

              Apparently the Derry LA (or whatever equivalent) called their emergency meeting for the morning after the big storm, Donegal LA had theirs the day after that. WTF?
              I knew a simple soldier boy.....
              Who grinned at life in empty joy,
              Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
              And whistled early with the lark.

              In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
              With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
              He put a bullet through his brain.
              And no one spoke of him again.

              You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
              Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
              Sneak home and pray you'll never know
              The hell where youth and laughter go.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                Why not use airlift?

                Assuming your Bridges come in sections the AW-139 should be able to move them - and to be frank, if they are too heavy you should ask a neighbour who has heavy airlift coming out of her arse...
                More efficient to drive, the AW139 may be able to lift a 105....... but not very far

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  More efficient to drive, the AW139 may be able to lift a 105....... but not very far
                  It's only about 250km or so from Dublin - not much fun as a flight perhaps, but that should be well within the capability of a helicopter with a theoretical range of 1000km or so...

                  Fill up at DFTC, drop off the gear, splash and dash into Derry...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    You can't sling a load from a heli over that distance if passing built up areas. I would doubt that any useful modules would fit securely in the cabin.
                    Easier, logistically, to truck it down in its usual manner.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                      It's only about 250km or so from Dublin - not much fun as a flight perhaps, but that should be well within the capability of a helicopter with a theoretical range of 1000km or so...

                      Fill up at DFTC, drop off the gear, splash and dash into Derry...
                      Range drops off fast when you start slinging loads under a chopper. Normally if you add max fuel and max payload to the empty weight you exceed the MTOW of the aircraft. Max range is always with max fuel but little load. In anycase the AW139'S are VVIP transport helicopters if we want to move large amounts of equipment then there is only one option the CH47, SMD we all know the chances of getting one of them!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        Range drops off fast when you start slinging loads under a chopper. Normally if you add max fuel and max payload to the empty weight you exceed the MTOW of the aircraft. Max range is always with max fuel but little load...
                        do you actually know the fuel burn rate/range of an AW-139 with 3/4 crew and lugging bulky underslung loads, or do you - and Dev, that other peddler of the obvious or irrelevent - just enjoy typing out vague platitudes that are so obvious that creatures living at the bottom of the sea roll their eyes when they read them?

                        yes, like anyone who can upgrade from velcro shoes, i'm fully aware that increasing the weight and drag of an aircraft will increase its fuel burn rate and therefore reduce its range.

                        so, do either of you actually know whether an AW139 with 3/4 crew could carry a section of Bailey bridge from DFTC to Inishowen without - obviously, given the underslung load - stopping to refuel on the way?

                        (na grohmiti raises the very sensible point that route selection could be a headache with an underslung load that might plumet several thousand feet at any moment, but i'm interested in whether our heroes actually know the figures they alude to...).

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                          Range drops off fast when you start slinging loads under a chopper. Normally if you add max fuel and max payload to the empty weight you exceed the MTOW of the aircraft. Max range is always with max fuel but little load....
                          Interesting that. For a no aviation dude like myself, I had to Google MTOW. But then when you think about it, would it not be logical to have two sets of figures for max range (unladen and fully laden)? Just a thought...
                          "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            While slinging a bridge might be a great photo op, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. As was correctly pointed out, planning a route to avoid any population would be a nightmare. Sling loads are risky enough, consume large amounts of fuel and should only be used when other means are not available. If the bridge can be safely & effectively driven up there, then why fly it? We've had loads of requests from well meaning but otherwise uninformed civilians asking about sling loading everything from pallets of water, boats to trucks for Harvey. Our besieged Air Ops Ctr. politely tells them no, just drive it there in a lorry, we are not slinging anything over the 4th largest city in the US.

                            As for the LA, if they can't get their act together, their problem. However, in fairness, it takes time to survey damage, decide what's needed and request it.

                            On a related matter, when the DF do this sort of ATCP, who pays for it? Here if we do ATCP (or Defense Support to Civil Authorities as we call it), the State Govt. has to reimburse the Federal DoD for the cost of fuel, humans, maintenance, etc. Our HQ has all sorts of spreadsheets of costings by the hour/day for whatever. EG: Lakota $1500/hour, HMMV $75/day, Blackhawk $4500/hour, Chinook $7500/hour. troops costing is dependent on rank/grade but by the day. If Army equipment gets broken, then the state has to reimburse the feds the full cost of repairs or replacement.

                            This is why, as much as governors moan on about "their" National Guard, they are remarkably stingy with deploying them until they get the Presidential Disaster Declaration. Once they get that, then Uncle Sugar with his money shows up and they are happy to start calling up the Guard...

                            A

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                              do you actually know the fuel burn rate/range of an AW-139 with 3/4 crew and lugging bulky underslung loads, or do you - and Dev, that other peddler of the obvious or irrelevent - just enjoy typing out vague platitudes that are so obvious that creatures living at the bottom of the sea roll their eyes when they read them?

                              yes, like anyone who can upgrade from velcro shoes, i'm fully aware that increasing the weight and drag of an aircraft will increase its fuel burn rate and therefore reduce its range.

                              so, do either of you actually know whether an AW139 with 3/4 crew could carry a section of Bailey bridge from DFTC to Inishowen without - obviously, given the underslung load - stopping to refuel on the way?

                              (na grohmiti raises the very sensible point that route selection could be a headache with an underslung load that might plumet several thousand feet at any moment, but i'm interested in whether our heroes actually know the figures they alude to...).


                              The diagram shows the payload range for the AW139 (in Lbs and NM), for an under-slung load you can easily cut the figures in half due to the lower airspeed and additional drag factors. For the crew of 3 we can take a weight of 600Lbs (old money). This leaves then about a ton payload at 80NM which does not reach Donegal and you do not want to be putting the payload down and picking it up again with multiple re-fuelling stops. So a non-stop flight is more in the region of 150NM, which cuts the useful payload down to about 0.5 of a ton. A Bailey bridge weights between 4 and 8 tons per 10ft bay depending on the exact type, so multiple trips would be needed. Also the equipment to prepare the site and deploy the bridge needs also to be moved. That is a lot of weight to move and is the reason why the modern version we use (Mabey Logistic Support Bridge) is packed into standard 20ft or 40ft ISO containers. It is faster to move the whole lot by road using a Scania.

                              The only time I can think of when a helicopter could help is for very local transport to remote sites from a base closer, such as Donegal Airport.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Truck Driver View Post
                                Interesting that. For a no aviation dude like myself, I had to Google MTOW. But then when you think about it, would it not be logical to have two sets of figures for max range (unladen and fully laden)? Just a thought...
                                First the quick answer!
                                Normally you can find two range figure which answer you question, the first is normally stated as range with some indication of payload, xxx km with xx passengers. The next is called the Ferry Range, this is the maximum range on the maximum amount of fuel with no payload. Sometime there is an indication that ferry tanks (sometime drop-tanks) have been installed. But as with everything that flies this is only half of the answer.

                                The long answer is that most published figures on the web are only still air calculation. For the real world the weather can effect range, both in terms of temp and wind. The location of the airports being used, due to their altitudes. The payload configuration due to Centre of Gravity limitations can play a part. For something like a helicopter with a load slung under it the type of load does also affect range, how much drag does it have, how fast can be flown without it becoming unstable etc. Therefore before each mission a lot of planning and calculations has to be done to get the real capability of an aircraft.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X