The HLH mock up was heavily damaged in a hurricane and was never meant to sit outside and was heavily corroded. The only incredulity should be in the manner it was displayed.
I am not sure what killed the program. I have seen discussions here about wether it was an incomplete prototype or a mock up. I can tell you from seeing the beast all broken up after hurricane/scrapping that it was not built to fly, just a mock up. Perhaps cnx was due to pod fascination going out of style, or perhaps Skycrane killed.
Thanks, totally missed that.The landing gear according to the Museum mag cited at footnote 14.Boeing Vertol XCH-62 - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Its from the British kids magazine Look and Learn (No 495 10/7/1971) and painted by its resident artist Wilf Hardy.
Hello,
Excellent.
www.flugrevue.de
It's sad to see the destruction of it and complete ignorance that thing was amazing I remember going to uh-1 training at Fort Rucker has a crew chief she sat out front of the museum I have pictures with her in the background amazing things like this Inspire younger generations and people she was one of a kind there was no need to destroy it complete ignorance she should have been preserved for the young ones to see and a part of History so much a governing entity sad
I believe that a major issue over the years, especially in the United States, has been resistance to the idea from various unions and 'their' politicians.
It has it uses in astute areas where the infrastructure is basically what you bring.
More to the point is the fact that cranes use vastly less energy to move each container than a helicopter does, and can unload many more cranes in a given amount of time too. And the training needed to become a crane operator is hugely less than that needed to become a helo pilot. In military scenarios, away from normal port facilities, helos make sense, as Firefinder pointed out. But at regular cargo ports they sure don't. So it comes down to a classic calculation of cost-benefit in various scenarios, just the sort of thing my old group used to do. In fact I was with Boeing's Canard Rotor Wing group when JHL came up, and you should have seen the ugly pig we came up with!
Well it wasn't that ugly. Most of the bus drivers I knew thought it rather elegant.More to the point is the fact that cranes use vastly less energy to move each container than a helicopter does, and can unload many more cranes in a given amount of time too. And the training needed to become a crane operator is hugely less than that needed to become a helo pilot. In military scenarios, away from normal port facilities, helos make sense, as Firefinder pointed out. But at regular cargo ports they sure don't. So it comes down to a classic calculation of cost-benefit in various scenarios, just the sort of thing my old group used to do. In fact I was with Boeing's Canard Rotor Wing group when JHL came up, and you should have seen the ugly pig we came up with!
