|
|
Post by ac2348 on Apr 16, 2014 11:22:37 GMT 1
Saw very briefly currently by the fence at Seaforth docks by the main road was a puma. I think it was VC-PHO but I was driving at the time! So can't be 100% on reg. Worth a look if you need it. Tail rotor was installed but no main rotors attached.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
Post by ac2348 on Apr 16, 2014 13:30:16 GMT 1
After driving back that way it is VP-CHO
|
|
|
|
Post by cdhaslam on Apr 16, 2014 14:04:23 GMT 1
Has been reported as a S76 VP-CHD Some difference.
I am sure if it is a Puma people will be wanting to go and see it
Cant find VP-CHO on the Cayman register.
|
|
|
|
Post by nachtjager on Apr 16, 2014 15:27:50 GMT 1
Confirmed as Puma VP-CHO at 1600.
Carl
|
|
|
|
Post by Beemer on Apr 16, 2014 16:11:54 GMT 1
There is no VP-CHO in ADU. There is VP-CHD (ex C-FZUT) but that is a Keystone S-76 C++ c/n 760764 of CHC Helicopters International. I checked also in Rotospot helicopter production list.Regards Beemer.
|
|
|
|
Post by wadoki on Apr 16, 2014 16:57:06 GMT 1
Helos aren`t really my bag but this IS VP-CHO and it is a Puma or the Tiger development.It is in a red/white/blue colour scheme and is next to the grain silo and easily visible just before the flyover northbound towards Crosby.
No way is it an S-76.
|
|
|
|
Post by ac2348 on Apr 16, 2014 17:00:00 GMT 1
Thanks nachtjager and wadoki! Knew my aircraft recognition skills and eye sight weren't that bad!  |
|
al20a
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by al20a on Apr 16, 2014 18:37:25 GMT 1
Guys, That is not a Puma and I have seen plenty in my time. I first thought it was AW139, but it is a S76. Try this link, it has a photo and diagrams. www.helis.com/database/cn/31721/regards Albert |
|
|
|
Post by wadoki on Apr 16, 2014 18:43:36 GMT 1
It is NOT an S-76!!
I`m really not bothered,I don`t take helos,any of`em.But anyone who takes Puma sized machines had better ignore the post above and get down there!
|
|
|
|
Post by ac2348 on Apr 16, 2014 19:33:00 GMT 1
It is NOT an S-76!! I`m really not bothered,I don`t take helos,any of`em.But anyone who takes Puma sized machines had better ignore the post above and get down there! Totally agree! You look extremely daft if you saw it at the docks and said it wasn't a puma. If three of us have seen it with our own eyes and said it's a Puma it's a puma. I understand that reg's online may not match up but like I said its there. Seriously guys I thought I'd post a handy message today alerting people of a new frame to catch at a local accessible place and people are making out as if I've lied and that two other people on this forum can't tell the difference between a puma and an S-76. I appreciate this may not have been the case but it sure does feel like it! Should have pulled over and got a picture. Sometimes eyes and firsthand information is better than the Internet you know  . Seriously if you need it get down there before it moves |
|
al20a
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by al20a on Apr 16, 2014 19:40:51 GMT 1
A photo of this machine will prove one way or another and let see who's right.
|
|
|
|
Post by ac2348 on Apr 16, 2014 20:02:16 GMT 1
Al20a the link you posted is for VP-CHD not the puma at the docks which is VP-CHO. Your link I agree is an S-76 but that's not our point as its not the reg of the puma which is clearly at the docks. Geez.
|
|
al20a
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by al20a on Apr 16, 2014 20:23:49 GMT 1
Anthony,I originally wrote down VP-CHO,because that's what my wife read it off as and my daughter wrote it down and at first I thought it was a AW139. I was told on another site that VP-CHO doesn't exist. I know one thing for certain it wasn't a Puma. VP-CHO is either a AW139 or a S76 and like I said a photo will prove this. I have shown my daughter two photos, one of a Puma and one of a S76 and guess what she pointed to the S76 as the helo we saw. So yes VP-CHO, Puma No!
|
|
|
|
Post by ac2348 on Apr 16, 2014 21:03:03 GMT 1
Okay mate if you want to note it down as that then go ahead. I'm not arguing over an aircraft. I know the aircraft at the docks was a puma so I'm noting it down as a puma regardless if it doesn't exist on the Internet as I'm pretty sure one or two frames will not be logged be them new or old. I won the 2007 regional aircraft recognition quiz when I was in Cadets so I'm happy with my own assessment and experience that it's a puma along with confirmation from two other members who saw it with their own eyes I'm happy that backs up my own view that its a puma. That's my view. If I and two other members are wrong then so be it, no harm done but I'm pretty confident It was but if i am wrong then touche' I look like a big boob and I'll swiftly be handing that honour back and I'll apologise and offer to buy you pint!
Last I'm saying on this for now as quite frankly I posted it as a handy hint for spotters like myself to bag a new aircraft and that was it. Either way new reg for me I'm happy!
Good day to you sir and happy easter and happy spotting!
|
|
|
|
Post by bluefox on Apr 17, 2014 0:32:50 GMT 1
Drove past Seaforth dock about 10.10pm and even in the dark it looks like a Puma, just don't know where anyone could get S-76 from. It is right next to the fence, not difficult to see in any way.
|
|
. Seriously if you need it get down there before it moves