• 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

I want to be a professional (non-airline) pilot when I grow up

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
The bird belongs to PHI, but I'm not sure its an "ordinary" contractor job. Now I must venture into conjecture...SOF contract in support of the Kurds?

Enough of that! Why didn't the USAF replace their aging Pave Hawks with the H-92 Superhawk?
Scratching my head on this one as well - especially in light of the airframe being adopted for Presidential Support mission. The HH-60W provides more power while living with the legacy cabin size of a standard H-60. My old PHI Chief pilot flies the S-92 in Thailand and its a truck of a helicopter needing little in the way of maintenance outside of overhaul of time limited components - everything is "on condition" on this helo - meaning that if its not broken, it is airworthy.

Cabin size of the S-92 is close to the old HH-3E - we need more cabin room for gear....

Cabin size is why the Mi-8/Mi-17 continues to be popular ... Sikorsky was brilliant on this with the S-92.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
S-92... a truck of a helicopter needing little in the way of maintenance outside of overhaul of time limited components - everything is "on condition" on this helo - meaning that if its not broken, it is airworthy.
H-60 maintainability was a generational improvement over the H-3/Phrog/Huey. You can fly 30 hours with just daily inspections. That was a really big deal when they came out with it. (The phase inspections got pushed way past 100 hours too, several years ago.)

I'm not surprised that the S-92 is another big step- and it ought to be.
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
Yeah but these airframes can essentially go on forever.... also data plate and type certificate in this example was issued in late 2018!

With the new FAA hopefully we will see Part 91 and Part 135 operations open up for these aircraft...
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Really? See: Drag Beam. Also see: transmission support beam (I forget the bulkhead number).

But I do agree the data plate should have a long life.
Educate me. I know the other parts. What is a drag beam? So, they experience stress. Can they not be replaced? The transmission support beam is relatively small. Point is, most helo cabin structure don't wear out. Monocoque airplane fuselage get bent or overly stressed you get an Aloha convertible, or worse.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Educate me. I know the other parts. What is a drag beam? So, they experience stress. Can they not be replaced? The transmission support beam is relatively small. Point is, most helo cabin structure don't wear out. Monocoque airplane fuselage get bent or overly stressed you get an Aloha convertible, or worse.

Many of the Army Hawks didn't have near the number of hours on them that the Navy birds did. In mid-2000's, I ran into some Guard guys and they're 1979 A-models had 5K on them. Ours had 9K and 10K. When the community retired the Bravo, many had 12K+ on them, so it showed a lot of the potential wear that can happen.

The drag beam is the beam that supports the main landing gear at the stub wing. There's immense pressure there because of how the landing gear sits. There is increased wear on the Navy aircraft (specifically the small boy helos) because of post-flight movement on the flight deck to put it in the hangar, but it's still wear.

Typically at least one aircraft (out of 2) coming back from deployment would require a drag beam P&E.

The overhead beam wasn't quite as typical a repair, but still semi-regular. Again, it required a P&E. I honestly can't completely remember what the cause was, but I think it was harder landings.

Do these issues equal the same use on the civilian side? Hour for hour, probably not, but I compare it to a rental car. A personally owned car is usually in better shape than a rental car with the same mileage because of the hard use of the rental car. But the rental car is a good gauge of what issues the car may have down the line with use.

BL, they're great airframes, but to say they'll last indefinitely is a loaded statement. Artisans can do amazing work, but that's why I said it's the data plate that can last indefinitely.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Many of the Army Hawks didn't have near the number of hours on them that the Navy birds did. In mid-2000's, I ran into some Guard guys and they're 1979 A-models had 5K on them. Ours had 9K and 10K. When the community retired the Bravo, many had 12K+ on them, so it showed a lot of the potential wear that can happen.

The drag beam is the beam that supports the main landing gear at the stub wing. There's immense pressure there because of how the landing gear sits. There is increased wear on the Navy aircraft (specifically the small boy helos) because of post-flight movement on the flight deck to put it in the hangar, but it's still wear.

Typically at least one aircraft (out of 2) coming back from deployment would require a drag beam P&E.

The overhead beam wasn't quite as typical a repair, but still semi-regular. Again, it required a P&E. I honestly can't completely remember what the cause was, but I think it was harder landings.

Do these issues equal the same use on the civilian side? Hour for hour, probably not, but I compare it to a rental car. A personally owned car is usually in better shape than a rental car with the same mileage because of the hard use of the rental car. But the rental car is a good gauge of what issues the car may have down the line with use.

BL, they're great airframes, but to say they'll last indefinitely is a loaded statement. Artisans can do amazing work, but that's why I said it's the data plate that can last indefinitely.
USMC upgraded their Hueys. Had to have been treated about as hard as early Navy -60s. Whatever they think of them now, I haven't heard they are unsafe or unreliable.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
USMC upgraded their Hueys. Had to have been treated about as hard as early Navy -60s. Whatever they think of them now, I haven't heard they are unsafe or unreliable.
Would also depend on how extensive the upgrade is. If the upgrade uses special tooling that holds the data plate in place and replaces the rest of the airframe then that's just one way to market a new airplane. If the upgrade doesn't substantially touch the airframe you might be in for some surprises. As a data point the MH-60S was a minimal upgrade to the 60L. However the change in operational profiles and some dynamic components led to lots of airframe cracks a few years post-fielding.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Last edited:

Pags

N/A
pilot
I took a look at their website. Besides some cool aviaonics work, they have two options...a baseline UH-60A with a fancy paint job or a zero time airframe with a nice paint job.
It says it was a 60A to L recapitilization so I'd imagine it's a "like new airframe" that has been rebaselined and not a true zero hour airframe.
 
Top