Los Angeles County Fires new S-70-33A Firehawk
Los Angeles County Fires new S-70-33A Firehawk
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Larry/Skip
Good to hear from you - long time, no pics!
Photographs have to be on a website before yuoucan post them on PPRuNe.
If you e-mail them to Helidrvr, he will load them onto Rotorheads.
Heliport
[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: Heliport ]
Good to hear from you - long time, no pics!
Photographs have to be on a website before yuoucan post them on PPRuNe.
If you e-mail them to Helidrvr, he will load them onto Rotorheads.
Heliport
[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: Heliport ]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport
Yep ,im back.
I have the pic on a site and all i need are the symbles that go in front of the address and on the back of the address.
If someone can post that info ill post the firehawk and a few other interesting picures ive taken lately.
Thanks
Skip
Yep ,im back.
I have the pic on a site and all i need are the symbles that go in front of the address and on the back of the address.
If someone can post that info ill post the firehawk and a few other interesting picures ive taken lately.
Thanks
Skip
Insert picture url between these.[img] [/img]
All teh other functions hit faq on this page or click: http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...=ubb_code_page
All teh other functions hit faq on this page or click: http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...=ubb_code_page
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope this works.
The radome is empty and the tank carries
1000 gallons. Armored seats are gone but the hover infared boxes are still installed.
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: Larry ]
The radome is empty and the tank carries
1000 gallons. Armored seats are gone but the hover infared boxes are still installed.
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: Larry ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Firehawk kit goes on any UH-60, it takes a long morning to install (after provisions -like the structural attachments and electrical mods- have been installed). The landing gear is lowered using beefy inserts to create the extra belly clearance.
The tank fills with a retractable hose in less than a minute, the tank empties through a longitudinal drop door that sets the pattern quite accurately, I am told.
With the size and accuracy of the drop, combined with the maneuverability advantage that helos have over airplanes to get right down in the hilly terrain to spot the drop, the guys who fly it say it is the best water bomber they have used.
The tank fills with a retractable hose in less than a minute, the tank empties through a longitudinal drop door that sets the pattern quite accurately, I am told.
With the size and accuracy of the drop, combined with the maneuverability advantage that helos have over airplanes to get right down in the hilly terrain to spot the drop, the guys who fly it say it is the best water bomber they have used.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: states
Age: 68
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick.....
On the S-70, how did GE deal with the cycle limits for the CT7 engine related to repetitive lift operations?
A few years back, a company I worked for was looking at a 214ST for fire contracts and logging. GE said that the finite life limits developed during certification (cycle lives) did not support RHL operations, and they would not support any operations relating to logging and firefighting.....
They also stated that if we pursued acquiring the aircraft and operated them in this type of operation, they would turn us into the FAA.
At that time, they said the cost to re-certificate the cycle lifes of the engines was cost prohibitive.
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: rotormatic ]
On the S-70, how did GE deal with the cycle limits for the CT7 engine related to repetitive lift operations?
A few years back, a company I worked for was looking at a 214ST for fire contracts and logging. GE said that the finite life limits developed during certification (cycle lives) did not support RHL operations, and they would not support any operations relating to logging and firefighting.....
They also stated that if we pursued acquiring the aircraft and operated them in this type of operation, they would turn us into the FAA.
At that time, they said the cost to re-certificate the cycle lifes of the engines was cost prohibitive.
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: rotormatic ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
rotormatic,
The engines are T700 military engines, operated under restricted catagory, so they have different cycles and limits, all of which might explain the difference. Of course, some of it is that the Black Hawk system can pick up the 8,000 pounds of water without developing much strain or engine temp at typical ambients.
I will check on Monday with the Firehawk troops and get back here with some details.
I am surprised that GE would try to stop operations, as they could merely shorten the overhaul intervals or criteria (the engine is actually on condition, with a time-temperature recorder, so it would tell you to overhaul at the proper cycles, regardless of hours). I will ask the GE guys we have at the plant about this. It could be one of those rumors that get started - do you have direct knowledge of the GE position?
The engines are T700 military engines, operated under restricted catagory, so they have different cycles and limits, all of which might explain the difference. Of course, some of it is that the Black Hawk system can pick up the 8,000 pounds of water without developing much strain or engine temp at typical ambients.
I will check on Monday with the Firehawk troops and get back here with some details.
I am surprised that GE would try to stop operations, as they could merely shorten the overhaul intervals or criteria (the engine is actually on condition, with a time-temperature recorder, so it would tell you to overhaul at the proper cycles, regardless of hours). I will ask the GE guys we have at the plant about this. It could be one of those rumors that get started - do you have direct knowledge of the GE position?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: states
Age: 68
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick.....
Yes, I have direct knowledge.....
I looked up the type certificate for the aircraft, and that has the explanation...It is using the military engine, as you stated. Since this engine is not Type Certificated by the FAA, I guess GE feels they have limited liability exposure with the product. The aircraft is also specifically approved for external load, and firefighting...but....
The 214 was also approved for RHL in the Bell manual. It was a standard category aircraft, with no limitations in the TC that prohibited any operations. Even the TC for the CT7 did not limit the type of missions the aircraft was authorized to perform if the GE engine was installed.
I am not sure of the methods used to develop the military cycle limits for the engine, but have the opinion that RHL was not factored into the program, as other military helicopters that have found their way into the civilian world...
The issue with the cycle lives was not temperature operations of the engine...The issue was rotational speeds of the N1 (compressor) components in the engine. The same old story.....limits developed for 3 to 5 power events an hour.....not 12 to 20 an hour.
The problem GE had was the formulas used for calculation of the cycle lives of the engine that were dependant upon N1 speed would not support operations above 12 power events an hour. Since this engine is basically "on condition", the cycle lives are the only factor requiring engine heavy maintenance actions. GE stated that the effort to revise these formulas to take into account RHL , and gain FAA approval was cost prohibitive....
Also, besides the FAA reporting comment, they stated part support from GE for our aircraft would not exist. Since the only place you could get parts for these unusual engines in the civil helicopter world was GE (Standard Category parts), that screwed us.
The Type Certificate for the S70 can be found at:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...45?OpenDocumen t
(the above link won't work unless you put a t on the end...)
If you get a chance, look at the airworthiness limitations service bulletin for the CT7 engine...then you can see the difference in the types of continuing airworthiness requirements for the engine.
The only difference I see in these two examples.....GE gets to sell more engines...... and Sikorsky has the most exposure to liability, since their Type Certificate is the only FAA approval for the military engine in the S70..
Yes, I have direct knowledge.....
I looked up the type certificate for the aircraft, and that has the explanation...It is using the military engine, as you stated. Since this engine is not Type Certificated by the FAA, I guess GE feels they have limited liability exposure with the product. The aircraft is also specifically approved for external load, and firefighting...but....
The 214 was also approved for RHL in the Bell manual. It was a standard category aircraft, with no limitations in the TC that prohibited any operations. Even the TC for the CT7 did not limit the type of missions the aircraft was authorized to perform if the GE engine was installed.
I am not sure of the methods used to develop the military cycle limits for the engine, but have the opinion that RHL was not factored into the program, as other military helicopters that have found their way into the civilian world...
The issue with the cycle lives was not temperature operations of the engine...The issue was rotational speeds of the N1 (compressor) components in the engine. The same old story.....limits developed for 3 to 5 power events an hour.....not 12 to 20 an hour.
The problem GE had was the formulas used for calculation of the cycle lives of the engine that were dependant upon N1 speed would not support operations above 12 power events an hour. Since this engine is basically "on condition", the cycle lives are the only factor requiring engine heavy maintenance actions. GE stated that the effort to revise these formulas to take into account RHL , and gain FAA approval was cost prohibitive....
Also, besides the FAA reporting comment, they stated part support from GE for our aircraft would not exist. Since the only place you could get parts for these unusual engines in the civil helicopter world was GE (Standard Category parts), that screwed us.
The Type Certificate for the S70 can be found at:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...45?OpenDocumen t
(the above link won't work unless you put a t on the end...)
If you get a chance, look at the airworthiness limitations service bulletin for the CT7 engine...then you can see the difference in the types of continuing airworthiness requirements for the engine.
The only difference I see in these two examples.....GE gets to sell more engines...... and Sikorsky has the most exposure to liability, since their Type Certificate is the only FAA approval for the military engine in the S70..
Last edited by rotormatic; 17th Aug 2002 at 16:14.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: states
Age: 68
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick....
We were looking at two 214ST's to purchase...
Due to the lack of support from GE, we did not buy the ships.....
[ 30 August 2001: Message edited by: rotormatic ]
We were looking at two 214ST's to purchase...
Due to the lack of support from GE, we did not buy the ships.....
[ 30 August 2001: Message edited by: rotormatic ]
So that's what happened to the final 2 Blackhawks that were supposed to join the Royal Brunei Air Force - I thought the -33 tag was a bit of a giveaway. They were first mooted as additions to the fleet after the haze/fires in 1997, but then people on the waterfront heard nothing more. Best wishes to LA - may they enjoy very many safe and successful hours with them.
Talking of 214STs, there is one in the hangar in Brunei that was bought for the Sultan's (now late) father. It only has about 1600 hours, and the Air Force would dearly love to sell it as it's a massive drain on limited resources, but the Royal orders are that it is to be retained and operated for sentimental reasons.
Talking of 214STs, there is one in the hangar in Brunei that was bought for the Sultan's (now late) father. It only has about 1600 hours, and the Air Force would dearly love to sell it as it's a massive drain on limited resources, but the Royal orders are that it is to be retained and operated for sentimental reasons.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One issue regarding the GE engines is that the CT7-2A that powers the 214ST is no longer in production. The T700-701C that powers the most recent S-70As is still in production, and should remain in production for some time.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: International
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But is it better than a bucket? "Less than a minute to fill" is still considerably longer than a bucket takes, thus decreasing the strike rate. This is particularly true if the fire is relatively close to the water source, which means the speed advantage that the integral tank has over the bucket is less of a factor.
And I bet it's a damn sight more expensive too....
And I bet it's a damn sight more expensive too....
Guest
Posts: n/a
radiohead asks is it better than a bucket. I am told the precision of its drop and the spray pattern make it much better, let's face it, they helred develop and finally bought the thing, and they certainly could have bought two bambi buckets and helos instead. But I am only parroting what the LACFD says. I wonder if any of them are in the forum to give 1st hand opinions?
