Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Still Waters

Bin Laden was not buried at sea,

781 posts in this topic

Thanks for the good pics Sky.

What similarities do you see between the Abbottabad piece and the tail section of the Blackhawk in flight?

None, because they are not even related.

The ships with the shrouded tails never worked out right. Note the "N" number, as they were UT Sikorsky experimental ships. As I recall the goal was enhanced forward speed, which I'm sure they achieved. But complexity and poor hover performance were the downside. The military never bought any and the project was abandoned. Now Sikorsky has flown its coaxial design with tail thruster and achieved 250kts in level flight. Still experimental.

Now, if you can just find a picture of an operational ship that would match up with that Abbottabad piece. :whistle:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for the good pics Sky.

What similarities do you see between the Abbottabad piece and the tail section of the Blackhawk in flight?

As far as the tail rotors are concerned, there are none because the Abbottabad helicopters were designed for a particular special operation.

The ships with the shrouded tails never worked out right. Note the "N" number, as they were UT Sikorsky experimental ships. As I recall the goal was enhanced forward speed, which I'm sure they achieved. But complexity and poor hover performance were the downside. The military never bought any and the project was abandoned. Now Sikorsky has flown its coaxial design with tail thruster and achieved 250kts in level flight. Still experimental.

Now, if you can just find a picture of an operational ship that would match up with that Abbottabad piece. :whistle:

Why would the Army disclose its treasured secrets on the Internet when those top secret helicopters are still in operation? After all, there was a very good reason why the SEALs blew up the downed copter at bin Laden's residence.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look a little closer to the Black hawk in the back ground BAbe ! THe Horizonial stabilizer look familiar with the addition of the silent rotor? :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a silent rotor Don, tail rotor or main rotor. Helicopters are notoriously loud, and depending upon design, the tail rotor often makes more noise than the main rotor.

The other highly irregular detail of that Abbottabad piece is that none of the tail rotor blades are damaged. That is extremely unusual and unlikely for a crashed helicopter. The tail rotor is turn about 2000 RPM in normal operation. With conventional tail rotor systems, contact with the ground almost always involves the TR, and it is severely damaged.

That piece was brought in as part of the story and theatrics. It's not off a Blackhawk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a silent rotor Don, tail rotor or main rotor. Helicopters are notoriously loud, and depending upon design, the tail rotor often makes more noise than the main rotor.

]

But, tail rotors can be modified to reduce noise.

The other highly irregular detail of that Abbottabad piece is that none of the tail rotor blades are damaged. That is extremely unusual and unlikely for a crashed helicopter.

You might want to take a closer look because I see a broken tail rotor blade and pieces of that blade lying on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've taken a closer look Sky, and only 1 blade of 5 is touching the ground, impaled, as though the entire assembly were dropped. The other 4 blades, the ones we can see, are completely intact, demonstrating that they were NOT turning when ground contact was made. It is nothing more than a stage prop.

Turning tail rotors rather self-destruct when they touch the ground.

There is not much they can do to reduce the radar signature for helicopters--tail rotor and main rotor--as I have been trying to explain to you for some time. Firstly, the tail rotor must be effective in its anti-torque role. If that's not accomplished the helo cannot fly properly.

This is a hoax, but you've already bought into that hoax hook, line, and sinker. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a hoax, but you've already bought into that hoax hook, line, and sinker. :whistle:

There could be a little damage on the blade closest to the camera... But nothing enormous, It may just be the angle it is in comparison to the camera.

This really reminds me of the early 9/11 reports of heroic servicemen finding intact bibles and American flags... Nothing too contentious admittedly, but to any non-Americans it really looks like something written deliberately, like a movie... Just seems really contrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've taken a closer look Sky, and only 1 blade of 5 is touching the ground, impaled, as though the entire assembly were dropped.

But, you said there were no damaged rotor blades.

The other 4 blades, the ones we can see, are completely intact, demonstrating that they were NOT turning when ground contact was made. It is nothing more than a stage prop.

Can't be staged. How is the United States going to stage that object and not draw attention? You can't just pull things out of thin air and expect people to believe you! :no:

Turning tail rotors rather self-destruct when they touch the ground.

Considering accident investigations, what does one damage blade and four intact blades indicate? What significance can be placed on the wall in that respect? Common sense indicates that there was no way that was staged and the proof lies in what that photo depicts.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a silent rotor Don, tail rotor or main rotor.

This photo proves that once again, that you are out of the loop when it come to facts on helicopters. Now, what was that you were saying about no silent rotor?

500x_main-660x440.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This photo proves that once again, that you are out of the loop when it come to facts on helicopters. Now, what was that you were saying about no silent rotor?

500x_main-660x440.jpg

You see, what you have there is a photo. I have yet to see ANY photo of a helicopter make any noise at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering accident investigations, what does one damage blade and four intact blades indicate?

That there's no way in hell that rotor was moving when it's blade entered the ground.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, what you have there is a photo. I have yet to see ANY photo of a helicopter make any noise at all.

Look at the design at that blade and understand that when that design is used in conjunction with 'Blue Pulse' technology, a large amount of noise reduction will occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That there's no way in hell that rotor was moving when it's blade entered the ground.

It wasn't turning, but take a look at that wall, which will explain why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This photo proves that once again, that you are out of the loop when it come to facts on helicopters. Now, what was that you were saying about no silent rotor?

Look at the design at that blade and understand that when that design is used in conjunction with 'Blue Pulse' technology, a large amount of noise reduction will occur.

By my understanding of the word 'silent' you would have to do better than a 'large amount of noise reduction'. To make something silent you'd need complete and total noise reduction. So, what he "was saying about no silent rotor", still very much stands.

It wasn't turning, but take a look at that wall, which will explain why.

Looked at the wall and, would you believe it, it refused to even say a polite 'hello', nevermind explaining anything. Rude buggers these walls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By my understanding of the word 'silent' you would have to do better than a 'large amount of noise reduction'. To make something silent you'd need complete and total noise reduction. So, what he "was saying about no silent rotor", still very much stands.

He is wrong, because silent rotor technology has been well-known for some time. Apparently, he was unaware of that fact.

Looked at the wall and, would you believe it, it refused to even say a polite 'hello', nevermind explaining anything. Rude buggers these walls.

The wall severed the tail rotor shaft between the engines and the tail rotor, so there was no way the tail rotor was rotating and add to the fact the SEALs blew up the helicopter. At that point, the tail rotor fell to the ground, which can be determined by the damaged blade and wreckage distribution on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is wrong, because silent rotor technology has been well-known for some time. Apparently, he was unaware of that fact.

Apparently, you are unaware of the difference between 'silent' and 'quiet'.

Look at the design at that blade and understand that when that design is used in conjunction with 'Blue Pulse' technology, a large amount of noise reduction will occur.

Well, is it silent or is it 'reduced noise'?

If we fit you with 'Blue Pulse' technology, would it make you silent?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, you are unaware of the difference between 'silent' and 'quiet'.

In the aerospace world, the rotors are known as: "silent rotors." not "quiet rotors."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auh ! yes the talkies,vs the Silenties ! Show them the actual feed that Barack Obama got to see of the Blackhawk went into yard ! THen the Seals demo`ed it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the aerospace world, the rotors are known as: "silent rotors." not "quiet rotors."

Splendid. Is BR Chairing a meeting of British Aerospace? Or perhaps he's guest speaking at a USAF meeting? No. He's in a forum with nothing to do with the Aerospace industry. Ergo, when the people in this discussion say "quiet" it means "quiet"

When someone says "silent" it means "silent".

I don't deny or doubt the tech you're talking about... I don't deny that many things designed to make tings quieter are called "silent" technologies. In this context BR said there are no Helicopters that make no noise. You told him he was wrong.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This photo proves that once again, that you are out of the loop when it come to facts on helicopters. Now, what was that you were saying about no silent rotor?

500x_main-660x440.jpg

They have had swept-tip main rotor blades for quite a few years now, but that does not make them silent. Because the tips on the main rotor travel at near supersonic speeds, the swept tip delays certain supersonic phenomena just as swept wings do on airplanes. After all, blades are just rotating wings.

Swept tips may indeed reduce the noise, but they do not make them silent, and have nothing to do with what we're seeing with the Abbottabad piece.

If you would be so kind as to show us some genuine pictures, not modified or tricked-out, of helicopter accidents, you will notice that the tail rotor (assuming blades are turning at normal operating speeds) is usually completely destroyed. The tail rotor is the most fragile part of the machine.

The Abbottabad piece is not off an american helicopter in inventory, certainly not off any variant of the Blackhawk. Further, when it contacted the ground, the blades were not turning. It was placed there as a stage prop, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Splendid. Is BR Chairing a meeting of British Aerospace? Or perhaps he's guest speaking at a USAF meeting? No. He's in a forum with nothing to do with the Aerospace industry. Ergo, when the people in this discussion say "quiet" it means "quiet"

Let's take another look because you keep missing the boat.

Silent rotor blades could lead to true stealth helicopters

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/silent-rotor-blades-could-lead-to-true-stealth-helicopters/4663

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Abbottabad piece is not off an american helicopter in inventory, certainly not off any variant of the Blackhawk. Further, when it contacted the ground, the blades were not turning. It was placed there as a stage prop, nothing more.

While in Texas, I attended an air show where a brand new Black Hawk fresh off the assemble line was placed on exhibit and it displayed a new type of rotor blade unlike previous models of the Black Hawk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take another look because you keep missing the boat.

Nope. Not at all. YOU keep going off on a random tangent when pressed.

BR said heilcopters couldn't be silent.

You said he was wrong.

I don't think you were accurate or fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While in Texas, I attended an air show where a brand new Black Hawk fresh off the assemble line was placed on exhibit and it displayed a new type of rotor blade unlike previous models of the Black Hawk.

Let's see. I've seen you and Don do this before... How does it go...

Proof. Proof or it's meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Not at all. YOU keep going off on a random tangent when pressed.

Apparently, you missed the boat again!!

BR said heilcopters couldn't be silent.

You said he was wrong.

New stealth helicopters have shown that is the case. There is much the public doesn't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.