• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

53s vs 60s

Gatordev

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
@Pags:

Are you at -2? You said RAG, but I didn't realize those guys were the RAG now. Just didn't put two and two together. I was over there earlier today shootin' the sh!t w/ my former det chief.

Why do I bring this up? Offtopic you say? Well, I asked him (airframer) about this whole mess Chunks has been trying to straighten out, and according to him and a Sikorsky engineer we had at our (previous) squadron, it had to do w/ the construction of the beams themselves. Don't really need to go into the nitty-gritty here, but the beams, and not just the rotorhead design, are constructed differently than the legacy Seahawks.

I know a lot of this you were already saying, just a bit more info than what I've heard to date. Plus I just find this stuff interesting and sometimes miss working in maintenance.
 
HighDimension

HighDimension

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Just a quick threadjack here to say that this is probably one of the most interesting threads I have read during my time at AW.com
 
P

Pags

N/A
pilot
gatordev said:
@Pags:

Are you at -2? You said RAG, but I didn't realize those guys were the RAG now. Just didn't put two and two together. I was over there earlier today shootin' the sh!t w/ my former det chief.

Why do I bring this up? Offtopic you say? Well, I asked him (airframer) about this whole mess Chunks has been trying to straighten out, and according to him and a Sikorsky engineer we had at our (previous) squadron, it had to do w/ the construction of the beams themselves. Don't really need to go into the nitty-gritty here, but the beams, and not just the rotorhead design, are constructed differently than the legacy Seahawks.

I know a lot of this you were already saying, just a bit more info than what I've heard to date. Plus I just find this stuff interesting and sometimes miss working in maintenance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm with HSC-2, which is now the east coast RAG. A couple of my buds just finished as the first Cat I's from 2. The squadron flew their last VH-3 flight sometime around January and from then on it was all 60s.

When were you in the spaces?

And I've never heard anything about the difference in the beams, but I have heard that the way we carry weight is different from a Seahawk. From my understanding, all the load bearing capability in a seahawk is in the floor, that's why your hardpoints are down at floor level. For the blackhawk and knighthawk, the strength is in the ceiling, hence while we'll be carrying our stores on wings army-style. excuse me while i put on my engineering hat and conject a bit, but perhaps the blackhawk beems are stiffer to support this load.

anywhoo, a PM is on its way with some specifics.
 
hscs

hscs

Registered User
pilot
Ok, the deal with the beams was how they were constructed. The beams on the legacy H-60s were constructed using multiple parts and the beam was made by shimming the parts together to create the beam. The -60S main beam was constructed by a new process whereby you can create the beam in one piece. This process has worked for fixed wing platforms; however, fixed wing does not vibrate as much as helos do. The engineers failed to identify the extent of the vibrations -- this lead to the cracks. The current ECPs will address this.

Unfortunately, the only thing to stop the sideflare is someone having a class A. The manuever as currently flown makes no sense to me.
 
S

S.O.B.

Registered User
pilot
hscs said:
Ok, the deal with the beams was how they were constructed. The beams on the legacy H-60s were constructed using multiple parts and the beam was made by shimming the parts together to create the beam. The -60S main beam was constructed by a new process whereby you can create the beam in one piece. This process has worked for fixed wing platforms; however, fixed wing does not vibrate as much as helos do. The engineers failed to identify the extent of the vibrations -- this lead to the cracks. The current ECPs will address this.

Unfortunately, the only thing to stop the sideflare is someone having a class A. The manuever as currently flown makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...


Is this the same beam that's in the Romeo?
 
ChunksJR

ChunksJR

Retired.
pilot
Contributor
hscs said:
Unfortunately, the only thing to stop the sideflare is someone having a class A. The manuever as currently flown makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Probably because you've never done one right. It's about time and airmanship. Get the helo from pt A to pt B as quickly as possible...putting the hook on top of the hookman with little to no deviation.

Sideflaring to sideflare isn't necessary and I agree if you're not VERTREPing or putting it in a zone that requires your nose 90-180 deg. out of your current heading, don't do it. But when it positively, absolutly has to be stopped on a dime...sideflare it. Aerodynamically, it's the smart thing to do.
 
hscs

hscs

Registered User
pilot
It isn't faster -- and why kick the nose out of the wind, unless you are trying to test the strength of your crewchief's gunners belt.
 
skidkid

skidkid

CAS Czar
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
By taking the nose out of the wind you are exposing the broad side of the bird to the wind and thus slowing your groundspeed. It is not always the answer but it definitely has applicability. like everything else jsut dont f@ck it away.
 
ChunksJR

ChunksJR

Retired.
pilot
Contributor
hscs said:
It isn't faster -- and why kick the nose out of the wind, unless you are trying to test the strength of your crewchief's gunners belt.
Click to expand...

What do you fly???

Reason 1 is what skid kid said. Reason 2, behind the superstructure of an AOE or AFS isn't condusive to hovering, as you need reference to the horizon. Also, the T-line mandates that you keep the rotors on the aft side of the line...in which case you can't get the loads close to the T-line, ultimately resulting in more "deck prep" time and thus longer VERTREP evolutions. Reason 3: You can't always fly in the windline. VERTREP to Type 1 ships, landing on Hospital ships are 2 instances that pop to mind.

Have you ever flown a 1500 Pallet VERTREP mission with 2 Aircraft? Don't tell me that the "round robin" pattern is faster than A-to-B.

~D
 
M

MasterBates

Well-Known Member
I talked to the P&E guy today (he just changed a cracked beam in 431) and it was a "1 peice" beam. He showed me where they used to be a couple peices rivited together. Been about 1.5-2 years they have been doing it here.

Some of our birds do have a "different" looking beam, that is rivited together.

I'll try to get pics tomorrow before they put the tranny back in.
 
ChunksJR

ChunksJR

Retired.
pilot
Contributor
hscs said:
Unfortunately, the only thing to stop the sideflare is someone having a class A. The manuever as currently flown makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Alright Debby Downer...

The other way to change it is change Naval Pubs. The NWP 4-01, Underway Replenishment manual is our bible for VERTREP. Chapter 10 is anyway. Go ahead and suggest the change...if they change it, you will succeed in your mission of killing the grestest mission helos have.

NWP 4-01 found here (need NKO login)
 
hscs

hscs

Registered User
pilot
Actually, the 4-01 is no longer. It is incorporated into the aircapable ships mannual. I would never bet my life on anything posted on NKO.

Still not sure why you would ever want to kick your nose out of the wind, and hence increase your torque requirements.

And by the way, VERTREP is not the end all be all of missions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top