For the rotary wing pilots

[HH-60H]

Well, loss of tail rotor drive, yes you'd auto unless altitude/airspeed not enough to auto. Loss of T/R control, you're just looking for mom, Kuwait or Bahrain...anything with a runway - a "coordinated effort between the flying pilot on the collective and non-flying pilot on the PCLs to keep the nose straight" (part of the NATOPS brief).

Just keepin' you straight (no pun intended).

Oh, you're right, that's that I meant. This particular instance of loss of drive, turned out to be a manufacturing defect, and they were moments from losing it. In fact they lost drive just after they touched down on the runway.
For a near mishap I have had loss of t/r control, not too fun.

 

[HH-60H]

Yeah, I think full practice autos are prohibited for all Navy 60's. There is a different philosophy though, in the Navy we need to be totally proficient at 0/0 autos. I wouldn't see anything wrong with doing a full running auto to a rwy.

 

[dustydog]

HH60H,

What squadron were you in? East or west.

Ex-HS guy, new VR guy. Run as fast as possible!

 

[HH-60H]

Well judging by your screen name, I was in the squadron that was in the opposite corner of the hanger from you.

When did you get picked up for VR? What squadron?

 

[dustydog]

OCT 05 FTS board. I've got a slight detour at the Pentagon before I go to a VR squadron. HS-11 I assume? After the DC thing, it am supposed to have my pick, but we will see when the time comes around.

 

[BigIron]

For you Stallion guys...what's the max GWT on those things anyway? Also, do you always have all three engines up and running, or just as the load demands to save gas?

69,750 for us on the Navy side. 21k of that is gas. appx 38K is op weight. That leaves appx 10k for cargo (internal OR external). Obviously the less gas, the more cargo, etc. About 4 hour legs, but can refuel in flight.

Always fly with all 3 operating on the Navy side. If we are range limited, we can shut an engine down to conserve gas, but there isn't much of a savings. The other 2 engines will pick up the load of the shutoff engine and demand more gas.

 

[ChunksJR]

69,750 for us on the Navy side. 21k of that is gas. appx 38K is op weight. That leaves appx 10k for cargo (internal OR external). Obviously the less gas, the more cargo, etc. About 4 hour legs, but can refuel in flight.

Always fly with all 3 operating on the Navy side. If we are range limited, we can shut an engine down to conserve gas, but there isn't much of a savings. The other 2 engines will pick up the load of the shutoff engine and demand more gas.

Piss him off...he'll lift your house...I love that patch.

 

[Stearmann4]

Sounds like the Navy/USMC would be well served by re-incarnating the CH-53(X). I frequently work with the AFSOC MH-53Ms, who on a a hot/high day can't even move themselves out of the way. I have seen them infil a 10-man element...with 5 aircraft in OEF. In addition, they AR (air-refuel) twice for our once which makes inter-operability somewhat problematic. If they had 53Es they might have an easier time of it.

We always thought we pretty big birds, and taxi by the 53Es and marvel, "Holy sh*t that's a big rotor system!"

 

[Q-ball]

Sounds like the Navy/USMC would be well served by re-incarnating the CH-53(X). I frequently work with the AFSOC MH-53Ms, who on a a hot/high day can't even move themselves out of the way. I have seen them infil a 10-man element...with 5 aircraft in OEF. In addition, they AR (air-refuel) twice for our once which makes inter-operability somewhat problematic. If they had 53Es they might have an easier time of it.

We always thought we pretty big birds, and taxi by the 53Es and marvel, "Holy sh*t that's a big rotor system!"

The AF MH-53M is really just a heavily modified CH-53D. It only has two engines and is really underpowered, but the AF dosen't consider it a heavy lift asset. As for the USMC CH-53E:

MGW: 69,750lbs
MAX External Load: 36,000lbs (single or dual point)
Fuel Load: 15,000 lbs
Range: Unlimited with Aerial Refueling. 4+00 without

We keep all three engines on at all times. To save fuel on long flights we usually pull back the engine RPMs a bit. As long as we keep the rotor RPM around 98-100 we're good

 

[Gatordev]

I STILL suck at 60 autos...I thought we weren't allowed to do aerobatic flight!!! 55-60 degrees nose up I believe is aerobatic!


~D

If you're pulling 55-60 degrees in an auto, then you're just not doing it right. Having done plenty in a slightly heavier aircraft model than yours (ie, more inertia), max pitch would be 30, and if there was any wind, you wouldn't need all that. I'm talking a 0/0 practice auto. Like HH is saying, it gets easier if you allow some forward drift on touch down.

As for real autos, the last one I know about was in the med from one of the HSL-east guys. They were doing an FCF when bad stuff happened. Don't know more about the recovery (and it doesn't need to be said here), but the end of the auto didn't work out for them. I know of two other cases of TR "autos," but those were at a hover at the back of the boat. Everyone got out of those, although one was at night.

As for survivability, during the day, I think it would be pretty survivable, like Bobby is saying. Handles great, over water or land. At night though, off goggles, I imagine would suck.

 

[ChunksJR]

If you're pulling 55-60 degrees in an auto, then you're just not doing it right. Having done plenty in a slightly heavier aircraft model than yours (ie, more inertia), max pitch would be 30, and if there was any wind, you wouldn't need all that. I'm talking a 0/0 practice auto. Like HH is saying, it gets easier if you allow some forward drift on touch down.

I guess that I'm not doing it right then, and the RAG guys are not teaching it right...the initial flare may be a max of 30 degrees, but the finish takes the pitch to 50-60 degrees of pitch easy every time. It could also be because of or rather severe aft CG compared to the H,F,B bubbas (tailwheel).

I'd the first to admit that I finish high most every time, but there are numberous cases of tail wheel strikes in the 60S from the extreme nose-up pitch...

 

[Gatordev]

Well, there you go, I guess that's why, then. I'm amazed the airframe is that different. I'd love to hear from an aero guy why where the CG is matters for how quickly it stops the airframe, but if that's what they say, that's what they say.

I still think it's weird, but interesting info, nonetheless.

 

[HH-60H]

but there are numberous cases of tail wheel strikes in the 60S from the extreme nose-up pitch...

I would rather have that than a stinger/tail strike in ours, and it is easy to do.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I would rather have that than a stinger/tail strike in ours, and it is easy to do.

I thought the MH-60S tailboom and tailwheel combo was engineered to take a fair amount of beating <?>

If you watch some army Blackhawks landing - you'll see some pretty aggressive landings, brakes off (always), and firm tailwheel first landings.

I thought the MH-60S was identical engineering wise to the airframe in the UH-60L..someone correct me if I am wrong here...

 

[HH-60H]

I thought the MH-60S tailboom and tailwheel combo was engineered to take a fair amount of beating <?>

If you watch some army Blackhawks landing - you'll see some pretty aggressive landings, brakes off (always), and firm tailwheel first landings.

I thought the MH-60S was identical engineering wise to the airframe in the UH-60L..someone correct me if I am wrong here...

Yeah, that's what I mean. I would rather have a wheel strike in a 60S than a tail/stinger strike in a B, F, or H.