None of that is true.
-
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
Should I stay or should I go? Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love HSC.
- Thread starter Wareal
- Start date
None of that is true.
I'm aware. I think it was a nicer way of saying "Despite what some CAPTs want, Flag leadership doesn't want to be involved in those missions. Now stop asking or I'll turn the car around".
If I understand you correctly...
A = attack
C = cargo
H = rescue
M = multi-mission
S = anti submarine
U = utility
The way I always heard it from folks who were there was that about the same time USN H-46s were falling apart that the Army was told they had to pick between the RAH-66 and the H-60Ls they had on order. The Army chose the 66 (which worked out swell for them) and the Army asked the Navy if they were interested in some 60s for "special friend price." Turns out the price and timing was right and the Navy jumped at the opportunity to replace the 46 with a helicopter who's defining characteristic wasn't engine failures. The 60S wasn't the best maritime helicopter but it was better than nothing.
I don't know the details of how/when the helo master plan came about but I imagine the planned end state of two very similar helos was financially and logistically better than the 5+ TMSs that were around in the late 90s.
I can understand the desire of old school HS to get in the fight. They spent the 90s planning and thinking if SEALS went to war that they were going to do it from the sea and that they'd ride in a 60H. Then some wars came and SOCOM kept the SEALS and they rode in mostly SOCOM air.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Far from insisting but it seems you're right, at least to avoid something similar which is hardly possible with Romeo
And...
V = VIP
O = observation/scout
T= trainer
X = experimental
Y = prototype
I think he was asking if there's a method to the madness of sikorksy's designations. For instance, I think SAC uses C for civil.
If you're not paying attention to where your airplane begins and ends it doesn't matter where the tailwheel is. As others have mentioned there are reasons for the design behind both tailwheel positions but making tight turns while taxing probably aren't among them.
60Ss have flown thousands of hours to boats with minimal issues when procedures and crew input is followed.
I thought he might be looking for something different.
When it comes to landing/tail gear layout, I think you guys are focusing on the wrong thing. It's not about the type of landing, but instead the size of the deck. A Kidd class has a deck the size of 52' (according to a picture of a Resume I found online) from foul line to the most aft portion. While that wasn't a LAMPS ship, you would still want to be able to land on one with a Seahawk. Then you look at a Spruance (and by extension, the Tico) class of ships, and their deck length is pretty short. I didn't spend a ton of time on them, but as I recall, I think when you preflighted the tail, you were hanging off the edge (I can't find a Resume picture in my 30 seconds of Googling for length comparison). Having the tail wheel considerably forward just made everything else easier with the LAMPS design.
Additionally (and maybe more importantly, I'm not sure), the Seahawk tail wheel is a tire and tube design, unlike the main gear, which is just a tire and split rim. The reason for that is because of the RAST system (which the Fox was also capable of using). The H-60 was so much heavier than the H-2, so there had to be a way to move around on deck and at the time, a Tilly Bar was the only option. The RAST puts a huge side load on the tail wheel that it was not uncommon for it to look like the bead was about to come off, but the tube helps keep everything copacetic. ALSO, it was not uncommon that when straightening the aircraft, the tail bumper would be over the deck edge/scuppers in order for the geometry to work to get the whole aircraft aligned with the hangar/track. Having conventional Blackhawk tail wheel wouldn't work for that.
Additionally (and maybe more importantly, I'm not sure), the Seahawk tail wheel is a tire and tube design, unlike the main gear, which is just a tire and split rim. The reason for that is because of the RAST system (which the Fox was also capable of using). The H-60 was so much heavier than the H-2, so there had to be a way to move around on deck and at the time, a Tilly Bar was the only option. The RAST puts a huge side load on the tail wheel that it was not uncommon for it to look like the bead was about to come off, but the tube helps keep everything copacetic. ALSO, it was not uncommon that when straightening the aircraft, the tail bumper would be over the deck edge/scuppers in order for the geometry to work to get the whole aircraft aligned with the hangar/track. Having conventional Blackhawk tail wheel wouldn't work for that.
Correct about the old DD flight deck. With the aircraft traversed out of the hangar, everything unfolded and the aircraft spotted for takeoff, you were over the aft flight deck nets when you climbed up the tail pylon on your preflight inspection. (Looking down at the flight deck nets that were one level up from the missile deck/Sea Sparrow box launchers, later the aft VLS in the cruisers.)
It wasn't a comfortable feeling if the ship was moving around in any kind of sea state, a little scary on some mornings out there in the dark and the aircraft is slippery from a coating of "liquid A" and saltwater sea spray, but I might admit it's also kind of a thril when you're in your twenties.
The FFG-7 flight deck was certainly longer by several feet.
It wasn't a comfortable feeling if the ship was moving around in any kind of sea state, a little scary on some mornings out there in the dark and the aircraft is slippery from a coating of "liquid A" and saltwater sea spray, but I might admit it's also kind of a thril when you're in your twenties.
The FFG-7 flight deck was certainly longer by several feet.
Definitely. You could walk aft of the stab on preflight when spotted for take off.
True, but then again the 60S design made sense in that it wasn't meant to live onboard CRUDES, just needed to land to drop off the pony. I also think that the Kidd and Sprucans were on their way out when 60S was fielded. I never landed on either. Ticos were a tight fit but you just had to take your time, trust in your AWs, and use the force. I heard of people putting tailwheels in the nets but never personally flew with anyone who did it.
This would imply that you lived onboard that ship. Why would you do that when you could just fly out from your marble palace in Bahrain every day and then go back and eat schwarma?