I didn't, just continuing the sarcasm. All my retorts have been meant in the friendly, wardroom way.
-
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
Stupid Questions about Naval Aviation (Part 3)
- Thread starter Top_Gun_1_0_1
- Start date
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
And there were no limits to how much fuel you could dump in the engine... Had a #2 beep trim switch stuck forward during my HAC check that we didn't know about (PMS bird, beep to max on start up) - UNTIL we did a simulated engine failure and armed the emergency throttle. The engine was somewhere near 1025C when I finally got it shut down (never exceed 950).
With the ECCS upgrade, we can't do that any more - the rocker switches now control "Manual Trim". Semi-manual control of the ECA, but it won't let you torch the engine like it did in the old day...
Why have they never put refueling probes on Navy -60s? Just no operational need?
Come to think of it, why don't Coast Guard -60Js have them? They've got the Herks to tank them and a need to fly long-range...
Come to think of it, why don't Coast Guard -60Js have them? They've got the Herks to tank them and a need to fly long-range...
Can the CG Hercs be configured as a KC? Don't imagine it would be too hard to do, but is that something they train to?
The Navy (at least the HS community) has had in-flight refueling on the list of stuff we'd like since the early 90's. The problems have always been:
Assuming you could get Big Navy to pay for the probes and the structural modifications that hanging a long pipe onto the front of an airframe requires, of course
1) For what purpose (mission) are the needed for? The answer was CSAR and NSW Support but that leads to the second question...
2) Who's going to pass gas? For the carrier, the S-3 was the obvious choice except that the helo counldn't get close to the minimun speed the S-3 needed to maintain to pass gas. (I was told it was 250 knots. Vne for an H-60 is 180 KIAS)
3) If you could somehow modify the S-3 refueling package, you still would need to send an S-3 into a threat envelope at a low altitude to tank the helo. Not a great idea.
4) The Air Force and USMC C-130's could do it, but if the C-130's were there, most likely the Air Force or USMC helos are there as well. If the AF or MC have helos already in position, why is the Navy doing the mission?
The MH-60S were supposedly built structurally to hold a refueling probe, but you come back to the questions I mentioned above.
If we had them, then maybe the Navy could become more involved with the CSAR missions in theater, but in my opinion, the Navy is willing to cede primacy of that mission to the other services and dedicate resources elsewhere.
The 60J and new 60T can carry more gas than a Navy H-60. The Jayhawk has the same 4000# main tank as the B, F, H & R, but it can carry three drop tanks.
The two port side tanks are 816# each and the single starboard side tank is 540#. An H-60 averages about 1000#/hour burn rate so a USCG helo can take off with almost 6 hours of fuel, so I don't know if there is a push to get in-flight refueling within the CG.
I've discussed this with the few Army bubbas that train to it. Their opinion, it's something they aren't too fond of doing and would much rather have a FARP set up to land, get gas, and go.
That's what I figured the reason was...it'd be nice to have, but too hard/expensive to make it happen. Same reason the Hummer doesn't have an APU.
I find it less easy to understand why the Coasties haven't done it. Seems like it'd be worth investing in the equipment for some of the ultra-long-range stuff they do out in the Pacific. And it's not like you have to invent the technology or techniques...you've already got probes for the 60 and drogues for the Herks. Are CG J-Herks plumbed differently from the Marines'?
I find it less easy to understand why the Coasties haven't done it. Seems like it'd be worth investing in the equipment for some of the ultra-long-range stuff they do out in the Pacific. And it's not like you have to invent the technology or techniques...you've already got probes for the 60 and drogues for the Herks. Are CG J-Herks plumbed differently from the Marines'?
But why incur all that development cost when you can just slap 3 big-ass tanks to the airframe? As Lumpy mentioned, they can carry 3 of them, compared to the Navy's 2...and that's if nothing else is onboard. Since the J/T models are more of a truck than the B/F/H, they can actually get airborne with all three filled up and still be mission-capable.
I've never flown a tanker (and don't know the restrictions...shame on me), but flying the Rhino clean below 180kts isn't exactly comfortable. Did they ever consider making a KC-2?
And for the record, I've only been able to get to 180 KIAS twice and that was going "downhill" for a bit!
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
I thought a KE-2C would work better, as the C is being phased out for the D, and there are not enough CodFish to go around, and night currency.
Take the dome, radar and NFO junk out, remote the hook release and two degree stop releases to the cockpit like in the COD and you'd have probably 7500 pounds of fuel in internal tanks, plus plumb the 12k wing tank to feed the internal tanks.
Probably 16k of legit give, for a recovery tanker, and somewhat less for a mission tanker of sorts (hummers launch early, and fighters grab a top off before getting into badguyland)
Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2
You had me at "#2 beep trim switch"...
You're not the only one to have that idea. I'll leave it at that, since I'm not sure what's proprietary.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Check the patent database. Grumman can buy it from me for $5M plus $1M per conversion.
Yes, you can patent improvements to others products.
Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2