Random Griz Aviation Musings

[Griz882]

Of interest (to me) is the HGU-56/p helmet configuration:
OPS-CORE side rails
Slim line NVG battery pack
Aerodynamic wind cover on boom mic
Right side velcro attachable convenience light.

Also curious if the gunner seats are same as NAVAIR designed in MH-60S. Calling @IKE for that one.

Left seat pilot is also sporting a face shield…not often seen up front.

 

[IKE]

Anyone know what the pinky trigger switch is for? I'll have to ask my -60M co-worker if they have one. I figured the counter-measures would be on the collective, but maybe they held onto the legacy release trigger.

It looks like what you might use to pickle an external load.

If it's the same as for UH-60A/L, it's a manual slew switch for the stabilator. The earliest UH-60s had an issue with EMI and the amplifiers that automatically slew the stabilator, which resulted in 60s becoming jarts. Navy hardened amplifiers and has a switch on the center console. Army went with an immediately accessible switch in case of stabilator uncommanded slew-down (hardover).

 

[Gatordev]

Dude in the left seat parking his left foot on the windscreen was weird imo

It's the only way to stretch your left leg out in the -60. Even worse when there's a HCU on the right side. You can push the pedals forward as well, but probably not desirable in that flight regime. I've been known to put my leg up there, too when my knees are starting to lock up on hour 3 of a flight.

Left seat pilot is also sporting a face shield…not often seen up front.

Not uncommon if when doors aren't installed.

If it's the same as for UH-60A/L, it's a manual slew switch for the stabilator. The earliest UH-60s had an issue with EMI and the amplifiers that automatically slew the stabilator, which resulted in 60s becoming jarts. Navy hardened amplifiers and has a switch on the center console. Army went with an immediately accessible switch in case of stabilator uncommanded slew-down (hardover).

I thought I'd seen the stab switch on the cyclic (like the old rescue hoist/current WCA acknowledge switch). If we're talking about the same pinky switch, does it just turn the stab off? I don't see a way you'd be able to slew it with just a "on/off" switch, but I may be misunderstanding.

For clarification, I meant this switch:

 

[Griz882]

For the face cover, I agree, but the doors are on.

Different picture of the switch.

 

[IKE]

I thought I'd seen the stab switch on the cyclic (like the old rescue hoist/current WCA acknowledge switch). If we're talking about the same pinky switch, does it just turn the stab off? I don't see a way you'd be able to slew it with just a "on/off" switch, but I may be misunderstanding.

For clarification, I meant this switch:

The Black Hawk cyclic stab switch only slews up, since that saves your life.

 

[Gatordev]

Gotcha, thanks.

 

[Griz882]

HeavyD Sparks, the guy who bought and rebuilt his own H-60, just entered into a project a get an old HMM-774 Phrog back in the air.

 

[IKE]

HeavyD Sparks, the guy who bought and rebuilt his own H-60, just entered into a project a get an old HMM-774 Phrog back in the air.

Who's more insulted by the "Baby Chinook" label? 46 or 47 drivers?
I could see it either way.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Who's more insulted by the "Baby Chinook" label? 46 or 47 drivers?
I could see it either way.

I am super curious bout the path to airworthiness and what restrictions come with operating a 46 with an N number. As I have mentioned in prior posts, the Marine 46E fleet was in the best shape of its service life when retired. These airframes and dynamic components were in amazing condition and were reliable. From a practical standpoint, little would be required as far as maintenance and simply keep fluid levels topped up.

Actually getting an Annual Inspection even under a Restricted type of certificate would be a challenge however - like so many aircraft, the act of inspection and disassembly puts for wear and risk on the airframe than simply “leaving it alone”. Likely a FAA operating letter would come with a host of stupid “compliance” inspections That increase the cost of ownership beyond what is practical.

 

[Griz882]

I am super curious bout the path to airworthiness and what restrictions come with operating a 46 with an N number. As I have mentioned in prior posts, the Marine 46E fleet was in the best shape of its service life when retired. These airframes and dynamic components were in amazing condition and were reliable. From a practical standpoint, little would be required as far as maintenance and simply keep fluid levels topped up.

Actually getting an Annual Inspection even under a Restricted type of certificate would be a challenge however - like so many aircraft, the act of inspection and disassembly puts for wear and risk on the airframe than simply “leaving it alone”. Likely a FAA operating letter would come with a host of stupid “compliance” inspections That increase the cost of ownership beyond what is practical.

The YouTube personality doing this was boardly open about the challenges of getting his H-60 airworthy (and they were significant), but his typical followers are more into heavy duty diesel engine modifications so Sparks doesn’t get into FAA nuances very much. He flies his -60 quite a lot (including a couple of aircraft recoveries from remote sites) so he has figured out the “cash-to-N1” formula!

 

[Gatordev]

Actually getting an Annual Inspection even under a Restricted type of certificate would be a challenge however - like so many aircraft, the act of inspection and disassembly puts for wear and risk on the airframe than simply “leaving it alone”. Likely a FAA operating letter would come with a host of stupid “compliance” inspections That increase the cost of ownership beyond what is practical.

Couldn't he buy the Type Certificate from Columbia (or whatever they're called now)? Theoretically he could also take it to them to do Mx. Depending on how he operated the aircraft, he also wouldn't have to do an annual, but could set up an Approved Maintenance Plan, presumably by buying one from Columbia and then following that himself.

Obviously all or any of that requires money and time, but given there are civilian -46s operating now under a TC, it seems like the process could be "easier" than with a -60 that's still not publicly manufactured.

 

[ChuckMK23]

A fine retro pic of a HT-8 UH-1D around 1967 timeframe. Pre-Whiting, when HT's were based at Elyson Field. I believe these UH-1D's were from Army inventory on loan to US Navy, before UH-1E and TH-1L's could be delivered to CNATRA.

 

[wink]

The orange doors were a mother Rucker thing for a long time.

 

[Griz882]

Some CH-46 love on YouTube. This is a flying museum ship…maybe some of you know one of these guys? (Note, audio is horrible).

 

[AllAmerican75]

I am super curious bout the path to airworthiness and what restrictions come with operating a 46 with an N number. As I have mentioned in prior posts, the Marine 46E fleet was in the best shape of its service life when retired. These airframes and dynamic components were in amazing condition and were reliable. From a practical standpoint, little would be required as far as maintenance and simply keep fluid levels topped up.

Actually getting an Annual Inspection even under a Restricted type of certificate would be a challenge however - like so many aircraft, the act of inspection and disassembly puts for wear and risk on the airframe than simply “leaving it alone”. Likely a FAA operating letter would come with a host of stupid “compliance” inspections That increase the cost of ownership beyond what is practical.

I believe he flies it under experimental type regulations, same with his UH-60. I believe his Dolphin is certificated because it was a former medevac helo.