More restricted use H-60's for civilian use coming soon

[Flash]

The Davis-Monthan boneyard has a few rows of old Seahawks (mostly B and F series). Few rows = 100-200 birds. Come to think of it though, I don't remember seeing any A or L series.

I imagine that those might still be kept on our books for various reasons (FMS, spares, etc?) and more difficult to convert to civilian use than a vanilla Army H-60.

 

[Gatordev]

The Davis-Monthan boneyard has a few rows of old Seahawks (mostly B and F series). Few rows = 100-200 birds. Come to think of it though, I don't remember seeing any A or L series.

The Bs are at EOL, though. Not sure about the Fs but some of the Hs still have life left in them. Historically the Army just doesn't fly their birds as hard as we do.

When I was at KPBI in 2004 getting gas, we had our two -60B det birds. One was an '86 and the other was a '92. Both were sitting at just over 10K hours (one might have been 11K, but I can't remember). There were several 1979 -60A models sitting on the line next to us and I was talking to the crew chief. He wanted to come over and look at our birds and I asked him how much time his had. He said they had 5K and he was floored when I told him our numbers.

I'm sure GWOT put some more ours on those airframes, since that time, but it was a different type of flying that they were doing.

 

[BleedGreen]

 

[SynixMan]

My understanding was the -60A models were still in use by National Guard, Reserve, and the Rucker folks until the -60Ms started getting delivered. So very recently.

I also have to think the material condition is a bit better due to maritime vs overland basing. You could sell me on the idea civilian operators would rather have an A model vice B/F/H for a multitude of reasons, biggest being an A is just a light truck helo with two doors.

 

[Uncle Fester]

So, does the approval for civilian operators only happen when a civilian operator asks for it?

I could see lots of reasons why civvies wouldn't be particularly eager to get -60s - if you need a utility helo, there are plenty of commercial birds that were designed with commercial operators in mind, in terms of MTBF, cost per flight hour, parts availability, etc. For government entities, okay, sure, I could see why military surplus is a good idea or at least a practicable one. But why would a power company or an oil field manager go for an old -60A as opposed to one of dozens of commercial models?

 

[BleedGreen]

So, does the approval for civilian operators only happen when a civilian operator asks for it?

I could see lots of reasons why civvies wouldn't be particularly eager to get -60s - if you need a utility helo, there are plenty of commercial birds that were designed with commercial operators in mind, in terms of MTBF, cost per flight hour, parts availability, etc. For government entities, okay, sure, I could see why military surplus is a good idea or at least a practicable one. But why would a power company or an oil field manager go for an old -60A as opposed to one of dozens of commercial models?

FWIW the Bell 205/212HP was the most efficient platform in cost per gallon of water dropped on most fires. Trailing close behind was the Vertol 107, only because the 107 is effected more by DA than the 205. I can't remember exact numbers but the firehawk was somewhere around 20-30% more per gallon of water than the 205 and 212hp.