RadioBanter - View Single Post

May 26th 05, 02:30 PM

wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Mon,May 23 2005 4:38 am

Ya think that MAYBE that's why I said "...the MC version of
the Pave Low..."...?!?!

Brain was in the Air Force. That's why the cross-reference.

1. Helicopters are NOT a radio subject, let alone AMATEUR RADIO.

Sure they are.

If we can be bombarded with reams of old tales on how you dodged
"incomming artillery fire", "served under the threat of the Soviet
Bear", and how "you" passed 1.2 million messages, I can discuss
helos.

2. Military aircraft nomenclature, names are NOT a requirement
in AMATEUR RADIO.

Neither are the names of soldiers you never served with and who
died three years before you were ever in the Army...but you deem it
necessary to being them up anyway.

3. Are there any AMATEURS operating "helicopter mobile?"

There was at least one in the Marines many years ago. I know of
several Flight Medics with Life Flight (Nashville) and Life Force
(Chattanooga) today who are Amateurs and carry HT's on occassion.

The "Pave Low" is the MH-53E through O suffix, operated mostly
by the USAF. More specifially "Pave Low II" to "Pave Low VI."

Amazing how "smart" you are with the click of a mouse, eh...?!?!

All the information on the Internet is at ANYONE's disposal.

Yes, it is...

Too bad you can't retain some of that...

Not my job. Too bad Stebie can't remember to get names correct
on helicopters he has "served."

I did get them correct. Absolutely correct.

YOU tried to make an issue out of my making an anolgy between the
USMC CH53 and the USAF Pave Low.

It didn't work.

The "CH" in the type designation stands for Cargo, Helicopter.

Very good....Still not any "smoking gun", though...

The CH-53A through CH-53D are CARGO HAULERS.

As is the CH53E Super Sea Stallion, on which I was qual'ed.

1. The colloquial term for "qualified" is spelled "qualled"
as it is pronounced.

And many people abbreviate it "qual'ed". You don'...that's fine.
But YOU were never one of those persons "qual'ed" on ANY airframe.

2. The CH-47 and CH-54 are also Cargo Handlers, types that
I've designed test sets for...and gotten them in
production and eventually delivered (RCA EASD).

And never qualified on either of them as a flight mechanic,
aircrewman, gunner or other flgith crew.

Not a one.

And it's cargo HAULERS, not cargo "handlers", Lennie. 'Handlers'
are known as LOADMASTERS...On USMC heavy helicopters the Crew Chief
also doubles in that role.

Some of the MH-53s are into special ops. But, the Sea Stallion
is basically a CARGO HAULER, first operational in 1966.

Actually first operational in 1965.

FORTY YEAR OLD DESIGN.

So...can we assume by your disdain for things over 40 years old
that wwe will not hear anymore meaningless meanderings about
"ADA"...?!?!

The "CARGO HAULER" was used for "special ops" through out it's
career too, Lennie. That's why the USMC had them fitted with
VULCAN's,
-50's, etc.

Tsk...next thing will be Stebie bragging on his "special ops"
experience...maybe with a "HALO Drop" story?

Nope...Never was a SpecOp operator.

The tactical and strategic use of helicopters is NOT anything
close to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

True. But you're not qualifed on all three subjects, yet in the
last three days you've tried to preach to me on them.

Silly Rabbit.

At one time or another I've participated in all three.

That's also why the USMC fit's them for vertical envelopment.

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Got your nose rubbed in your error again, eh Lennie...?!?!

The USMC, The Air Force and the Navy all used them for SpecOp
insertions, Maritime patrol, security-of-the seas missions.

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Got your nosed rubbed in your own error again, eh, Lennie? Of
course any brief "search" via Google, et al, will produce numerous
reports that substantiate exactly what I said...

The airframe comes off the same production line at Sikorsky at
Stratford, CT.

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Got your nosed rubbed in your own error again, eh, Lennie? Of
course you want to change subject now...Got caught with your "facts"
exposed again...

The same airframe...Over 80% interchangeable.

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Quite correct...But still absolutely true.

And the missions of the CH-53 (ALL variants) far exceed "CARGO
HAULING".

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Of course it is, Lennie.

YOU made an issue out of it! And still absolutely true.

Of course you didn't know that because the scope of your
knowledge
stopped at your wrist.

Not my job to know details of helicopters.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! ! !

THERE WE GO!

Lennie thought he'd be a smart alec and try to "ding" me on yet
another topic HE was unfamiliar with...

Got zinged!

YESTERDAY he "knew the details"... Now that he got slapped around
for his errors, it's...

........."NOT MY JOB"...!!!!

BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! !

I didn't lie about a single thing, Lennie.

Not in Stebieworld. Stebie NEVER lies in Stebieworld...everyone
else does there...

Not in "Stebieworld" (wherever that's supposed to be), not
here...Not about these topics...

If you want a REAL education, you should read some of the
histories of the USMC's various Sea Stallion units...Most notably
HMH-462, HMH-464, HMH-363 and HMH-361.

I was in all except 464 at one time or another.

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....OUCH!

Spanked by "The Gunny" again!

Take the time to do some research and you'll find a few of those
"seven hostile actions" you claim I never participated in.

Is Stebie's name featured anywhere on those "research pages?"

So far, none of us readers have found out the WHEN and
WHERE of Stebie's famous "seven hostile actions."

And you won't from me.

"NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY".

Hint: This newsgroup is NOT about the Glory of the USMC
or about helicopters. Try to stay focussed. If you write
names of helicopters, try to get them CORRECT.

Hint: It's "focused". That error's been pointed out to you
frequently but you continue to make it.

And I got them "CORRECT"...Including who flies what and why....

If you are going to LIE, BLUFF, SCAM, try to get your military
nomenclature CORRECT.

I did so. Absolutely correct.

You did NOT do so!

Tsk, tsk. I corrected you and you admitted to the INCORRECT
"cross-reference" (your term for covering up your mistake).

No error...no mistake. The USMC flies the "CH53" (and variants)
and the USAF flies the "Pave Low".

NOBODY can tell mighty Stebie ANYTHING!

Plenty of folks can "tell me lots"...

YOU, on the otherhand, seem to ahve a problem getting a LOT of
things about Amateur Radio and current military aircraft right, Lennie.

The service history and deployment of the CH53-series aircraft is
yet another "field" in which YOUR "experience" is from a mouse click.

Absolutely!

And LIMITED to that "experience".

I, on the otherhand, have FIRST HAND experience and didn't need to
find a URL to get it...

I've spent 53 years working in RADIO-ELECTRONICS, not
helicopters. This forum is NOT about helicopters. This
newsgroup is about RADIO, specifically amateur radio policy.

No...You spent 53 years riding other people's coat tails. And now
you spend your retirement riding the mouse to try and impress people
with what you can find out "now" because you didn't do it "then".

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ