Del Mar helicopters

In Aviation Week June 1960, I found an ad from the Del Mar Laboratories,
presenting a light helicopter for manned or unmanned use. Probably identical
to the later DH-1A "Whirlymite", but looking somewhat different on this picture.
(More about the DH-1A on Stingrays site : http://sites.google.com/site/stingrayslistofrotorcraft/del-mar-dh-1a-whirlymite)

Found this this is new one for me.

The ultimate evolution of theDelMar helicopters was the tandem-rotor DH-20. Conceived as a super-portable medical evacuation helicopter, the DH-20 was powered by twin turbine engines and designed to carry a pilot and two passengers, or a pilot and one passenger in a litter. Remarkably, the entire helicopter was able to fold up for ground, sea or air transport, and was capable of operating in and out of far smaller landing zones than a traditional helicopter. As testing of the DH-20 continued, however, the requirement for such missions declined, and the aircraft was never put into production or flown operationally.

Had a smaller version of this picture. Thanks a lot for sharing!

Soem pictures of the DH-1 "Whirlymite" from "der Flieger", Januray 1963. The drawing
shows the dynamic/propulsion part only, without seat or landing gear

Thank you Sineva,

but I don't know if DH-2 was the same as DHT-2 or not ?.

Thank you Sineva,

and a large numbers are missing from its series,we know only DH 1 & 2,from 3 to 15 are not recognized,DF-16 Flare was a target,and DH 17 to 19 also nothing ?.

LOL. Oh good just what the Army needed, a helicopter target with "US ARMY" on the side to shoot at. Having known some air defenders, that might not have been a good move.

Good Day All -

A recent EPay buy - the DH-1A is the helo, the DHT-1 is the platform itself. Also a different video than what was posted earlier in this thread: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUzvdu8wQH8


Enjoy the Day! Mark

From Air Force magazine 1967,

here is DF-14 target.

hesham said:

From Air Force magazine 1967,

here is DF-14 target.

Click to expand...

The helicopter on the right was different a little,I know it was Whirlymite.

Hi,

the Del Mar DW-10 was a pilotless vehicle,with expandable powered,1959.

From Air Pictorial 1961,

what was Del Mar Radop towed-target ?.

hesham said:

From Air Pictorial 1961,

what was Del Mar Radop towed-target ?.

Click to expand...

I think maybe a picture got lost.

Among other things, Del-Mar made towed radar-optical (Radop) targets for aerial gunnery training.

By the mid-1960s, the company had become a leading U.S. Defense Department prime contractor in the development and production of aerial tow target systems for weapons training, and instrumented ground targets for scoring air-to-ground automatic weapons delivery. It also produced helicopter target drones and helicopter flight trainers for the U.S. Army.

Click to expand...

hesham said:

From Air Pictorial 1961,

what was Del Mar Radop towed-target ?.

Click to expand...

That looks like a post which would link to an article but there isn't one, so I have a question about the post, is it a link or a question?

As for it being a question, playing in Google found a court case of the manufacturer versus the US government,

"

Del Mar Engineering Laboratories v. United States, 524 F.2d 1178 (1975)​

Oct. 22, 1975 · United States Court of Claims · No. 27-71

524 F.2d 1178

DEL MAR ENGINEERING LABORATORIES v. The UNITED STATES

United States Court of Claims.


*1179J. B. McGuire, Los Angeles, Cal., attorney of record, for plaintiff.


Donald E. Townsend, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. Rex E. Lee, for defendant.


Before COWEN, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and NICHOLS, Judges.


OPINION


PER CURIAM:


This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion, filed June 13, 1975, moving that the court adopt as the basis for its judgment in this case the recommended decision of Trial Judge Hal D. Cooper, filed April 28, 1975, pursuant to Rule 134(h) since plaintiff has failed to file a timely notice of intention to except thereto. Upon consideration thereof, without oral argument, since the court agrees with the trial judge’s recommended decision, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby affirms and adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this ease. Therefore, it is concluded that plaintiff is not entitled to recover and the petition is dismissed.


OPINION OF TRIAL JUDGE


COOPER, Trial Judge:


Plaintiff, under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, seeks reasonable and entire compensation for the alleged unauthorized use and manufacture by or for the United States of an invention described in claims 1 to 7, inclusive, of United States Letters Patent No. 2,869,120, entitled “Tow Target Having Combustion Signal Means.”
"