Haha I was referencing the TAD in the Texan, but I'm sure I probably exaggerated.
And hey now, not every helicopter pilot is a disgruntled fixed-wing-coulda-been! (EDIT: *realizes he's quoting something posted by an HSC guy*)
-
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
USN HT's a calamity
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
Haha I was referencing the TAD in the Texan, but I'm sure I probably exaggerated.
And hey now, not every helicopter pilot is a disgruntled fixed-wing-coulda-been! (EDIT: *realizes he's quoting something posted by an HSC guy*)
You don't have to be disgruntled to go back to fixed wing. Some of us just went "that was cool. Let's try something else now. Oh, also airlines".
No doubt. Even thinking back on the T-6B makes me smile. I'd love to fly that thing now that I (think I) know what I'm doing. Maybe it'd be like a Jetsons car instead of a bull this time...
Germane to our discussion - nice detailed review of the Bell 505 JetRanger X
https://www.verticalmag.com/features/back-in-the-game/
https://www.verticalmag.com/features/back-in-the-game/
Never going to happen. Makes too much sense.
It's an option, and the Navy knows it. It's a good 1-for-1 replacement for the 206. The question is whether you want that or whether you want something bigger like the 407 that allows for more advanced capability and fleet-like training.
Perfect world, the Navy gets a simple VFR bird for contact flights and something bigger for IFR and tactical flights. That would make too much sense and cost too much money though.
You want a simple, light, and cheap bird to learn to hover in, full autos, etc.
You want something more complex and capable as you get closer to representative missions.
That's what we used to do. Probably a little too pricey in today's world, though.
Currently, neither the 505 or the 407 are IFR certified.
Right. You have to think Bell knows this. If you dont like the rules, change the rules.
Part 23 reform is happening - an example of rhe rules being changed to support the market.
Bell has to be influencing the f*ck out of this - FAA, PMA, your favorite congressmen, etc. These are people who like to win. My money is on Bell figuring it out - and Big Navy mysteriously coughs up the $ for lots of new shiney orange and white helos at South Field
Part 23 reform is happening - an example of rhe rules being changed to support the market.
Bell has to be influencing the f*ck out of this - FAA, PMA, your favorite congressmen, etc. These are people who like to win. My money is on Bell figuring it out - and Big Navy mysteriously coughs up the $ for lots of new shiney orange and white helos at South Field
Says a lot about the markets Bell is (or isn't) courting with those models. They're positioning the Jet Ranger X to guard against Robinson eating their lunch on the small turbine market after chasing the more lucrative high end.
No.
Because no fleet aircraft fly on IFR waivers...
Sensing sarcasm, I have to ask which ones do. I didn't know there were any, having been a 60 guy.
I was genuinely under the impression that DoD can operate any military aircraft it wants to IFR without getting FAA certification - nor is FAA even remotely consulted. The Army operated UH-1's in US national airspace systems for DECADES, dual pilot IFR - so what am I missing?
I'm not sure. We follow FAA filing rules in Hornet/Rhino land. The community fought for years to get RVSM certification from the FAA. That cert and RNAV both now have to be certified for every new aircraft software (SCS) release. The certification usually happens sometime during OT, but it can come after fleet release, which always goes over well. "Here's some Gucci new software, oh, BTW, you can't file in RVSM airspace yet..."
Although these days, more guys probably prefer to stay in the Maskoffosphere.
Last edited: