Stupid questions about Naval Aviation (Pt 2)

[helolumpy]

When the Navy bought the H-60B, they moved the tailwheel up so there'd be more room on the smaller deck. A few years later, the Navy bought the H-60F and the Reserves bought the initial batch of H-60H's (which active Navy soon bought into). Since they were being built on the same production line that did the H-60B, the tailwheel stayed forward for interoperability.
When the Navy was looking to replace the H-46, there were two choices, a new 'tandem rotor' helo or a 'blackhawk varient'. Since the Army cancelled the order of 120+ H-60L to move funding for the Comanchee (which later got killed as well) Sikorsky had a bunch of airframes partially assembled that they offered to the Navy for a reduced price. This resulted in the Navy being able to replace every H-46 on the flight line with a H-60 varient for the same price it was going to take to develope a single prototype of a tandem rotor helo. (Boeing sold the production rights to the Sea Knight to Kawasaki, where you can now buy a brand new H-46 if you want...)
The Navy wanted to move the tail in, but the price tag was going to be $1 million per airframe to move it. (Lots of structural work needed to done on the inside since the airframe structure of an H-60S and all other USN H-60's is VERY different.
So, the Navy did the cheaper option and we now have the tailwhere in the rear like an Army blackhawk.
Since the H-60R is a new airframe and is designed to deploy on CRU/DES ships, it has the smaller footprint.
Probably more than you wanted to know, but that's why it is what it is.

 

[Pags]

When the Navy bought the H-60B, they moved the tailwheel up so there'd be more room on the smaller deck. A few years later, the Navy bought the H-60F and the Reserves bought the initial batch of H-60H's (which active Navy soon bought into). Since they were being built on the same production line that did the H-60B, the tailwheel stayed forward for interoperability.
When the Navy was looking to replace the H-46, there were two choices, a new 'tandem rotor' helo or a 'blackhawk varient'. Since the Army cancelled the order of 120+ H-60L to move funding for the Comanchee (which later got killed as well) Sikorsky had a bunch of airframes partially assembled that they offered to the Navy for a reduced price. This resulted in the Navy being able to replace every H-46 on the flight line with a H-60 varient for the same price it was going to take to develope a single prototype of a tandem rotor helo. (Boeing sold the production rights to the Sea Knight to Kawasaki, where you can now buy a brand new H-46 if you want...)
The Navy wanted to move the tail in, but the price tag was going to be $1 million per airframe to move it. (Lots of structural work needed to done on the inside since the airframe structure of an H-60S and all other USN H-60's is VERY different.
So, the Navy did the cheaper option and we now have the tailwhere in the rear like an Army blackhawk.
Since the H-60R is a new airframe and is designed to deploy on CRU/DES ships, it has the smaller footprint.
Probably more than you wanted to know, but that's why it is what it is.

Good history lesson! The same was related to me a few years back by an old DH who was well versed in his Navy Helo history.

The decision to not move the tail wheel on the 60S was probably made easier by the fact that the 60S was never supposed to deploy on small boys (other than USNS, but they have bigger decks than CRU/DES).

Wasn't the 60R supposed to be rebuilt 60Bs?

 

[helolumpy]

The H-60S has done some deployed time on a CRU/DES recently, I know HSC-8 just did a lot of work on that issue. I'm guessing there are limitation WRT to moving the helo in out of the hangar since the SIERRA can not install a RAST probe.
As for the ROMEO, it was orignially going a new airfram, then it changed to be a frankenstein aircraft. The second plan was to chop the cockpit and tail off the BRAVOs and save the 'cabin tub'. They ROMEO was then going to have a new cockpit and tail assembly on that original tub.
The designers then started to find all kinds of structural issues with the tubs since the Navy has flown the piss out the BRAVOs since they got them. When they figured out how much it was going to cost to reinforce the tub to have a 10,000 life, the price was actually a little higher than a completely brandnew airframe. So, the ROMEOs are all brand new and have the new helo smell.... kind of like the new car smell but with lambskin seat covers!!

 

[yak52driver]

Is there any difference is taxing between the H-60B and S? The reason I ask is that different tailwheel aircraft I fly that have a shorter distance between the mains and the tailwheel as compared to longer can be a little 'squirrelier' when landing/taxing in a crosswind. May not be a factor for larger/heavier aircraft like this.

 

[BACONATOR]

Is there any difference is taxing between the H-60B and S? The reason I ask is that different tailwheel aircraft I fly that have a shorter distance between the mains and the tailwheel as compared to longer can be a little 'squirrelier' when landing/taxing in a crosswind. May not be a factor for larger/heavier aircraft like this.

Well I can't tell you about the "feel" of the two differing, but I can tell you the limits differ. The S can land at 60kgs with the T/W locked, and 20kgs with it unlocked. I can't recall what someone posted on here for the F model, but I think it was like 40 and 70, so logically, the tailwheel being farther back results in a larger moment arm and (without a damper), more inherent instability and possibility for pilot-induced oscillations and thus lower limits on running landings. I imagine there is a difference in how it taxis, minor or otherwise.

 

[yak52driver]

Well I can't tell you about the "feel" of the two differing, but I can tell you the limits differ. The S can land at 60kgs with the T/W locked, and 20kgs with it unlocked. I can't recall what someone posted on here for the F model, but I think it was like 40 and 70, so logically, the tailwheel being farther back results in a larger moment arm and (without a damper), more inherent instability and possibility for pilot-induced oscillations and thus lower limits on running landings. I imagine there is a difference in how it taxis, minor or otherwise.

That makes sense. Thanks!

 

[Uncle Fester]

Whenever you need a contestant to go up against an E-2 FO in Competitive Nerdery, just ask a helo bubba about RW physics...

 

[exhelodrvr]

Whenever you need a contestant to go up against an E-2 FO in Competitive Nerdery, just ask a helo bubba about RW physics...

RW psychics would probably be more accurate.

 

[ChunksJR]

RW psychics would probably be more accurate.

No Psychics required. As I told my onwings: 3 theories to helo aero:

1) Beat the air into submission
2) So ugly the earth repeals them
3) Chuck Norris wills it

Now, you wanna know about physics in a hover, or forward flight? hehe. The hover is figured out. The forward flight is still theoretical.

 

[ChunksJR]

Now this ship, HMAS Tobruk, has a deck that challenges the fit of a 60S:

Nice landing.

 

[Gatordev]

No real issues coming into a CG. The 60S fits just fine, but the tailwheel is close to the edge. You just need to put it into the wheel boxes. Which is the same for all small boys. Have to put it into the wheel boxes.

Now this ship, HMAS Tobruk, has a deck that challenges the fit of a 60S:

I have yet to see these fabled wheel boxes. Maybe I'm just not paying attention (very likely), but do they look different than the big deck ones? I just never see them w/ all the other T-lines, Butt lines, etc.

 

[insanebikerboy]

No Psychics required. As I told my onwings: 3 theories to helo aero:

3) Chuck Norris wills it

That is the one that I still believe.

 

[wlawr005]

I have yet to see these fabled wheel boxes. Maybe I'm just not paying attention (very likely), but do they look different than the big deck ones? I just never see them w/ all the other T-lines, Butt lines, etc.

Wheel boxes (DDG)...just forward of the T-line

 

[Gatordev]

Hmm, interesting. It's very likely I've just ignored them...kind of like white noise.

 

[Pags]

Hmm, interesting. It's very likely I've just ignored them...kind of like white noise.

Yeah, that was a good shot of them by WLAWR. Need to put the mains in the boxes, not just the circle.