Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Sikorsky FireHawk

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Sikorsky FireHawk

Old 1st Oct 2005, 06:32
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: washington
Posts: 36
Nick: your wrong again on the regs!
Let me give you one example:
What is that on the door??? N190LA? OHHHHH yes that is an FAA registration number.

Hmmmm don't see too many of those on the Army ships????

Sikorsky has built hundreds of these ships. Do you think they really need to make money off 2 or 3 in LA??? There is more to the story here.

They don't have enough work to keep them busy so guess what? They have more EMS flights than they do fire missions now. So much for EMS in that area.
mustangpilot is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2005, 07:21
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,604
Nick,

I would suggest that Sikorsky benefits slightly from being able to sell parts to itself at factory cost vice the price they charge commerical operators. That gives The Winged S a very nice cost advantage in that regard.

The issue is not about the Blackhawk but rather the hype and bovine fecal matter that suggests the government run wildfire fighting aviation units are "cost effective".

There is a small air force abuilding in our most far west and northern state...using Cobras now...much to the disadvantage of the ground fire fighters. Ever try to hitch a ride on a Cobra with all your backpacks and Pulaski's?

I defy you to get any cost information from that outfit.....matter of a fact...do a google search and see just how well they keep that operation hidden from public scrutiny....Saddam Hussein wishes he could have been as good as that.

Do a google search and see how much information you can surface regarding cost data for government run air forces that do fire fighting and see what we are telling you. They do not let that information out....and for a very darn good reason. They are bleeding the taxpayer at the expense of private enterprise.

The USFS is slowly heading the same way....you will note this year they started using Exclusive Use Contracts vice Call When Needed.....ever wonder what that will lead to if allowed to go unchecked?

I would suggest to you....Carson, Erickson, Columbia, and a lot of other private sector operators can meet the same standard and perform the same functions as the guvmint air forces and do so cheaper thus the taxpayer could have more....not less coverage for the same amount of money.

If a little bit is good....why would not more of the same for the same cost be better?

This begs the question however....if a private operator tried to do the mods that LA County did to the Blackhawk....would the FAA have blessed the project or would that guvmint bureaucracy have prevented it from happening?

We saw a massive number of private sector aircraft respond to the disaster area caused by Katrina....what do we do if those resources begin to dry up because of these guvmint air forces?

Think beyond your pocket book and pension Nick.....the Blackhawk is a fine aircraft....but it is not the only aircraft in the inventory. A couple of other Sikorsky models play a role in the firefighting game....58T, 61, 64, and 65 (CH-53D). The more of them that are flying helps secure your pension.
SASless is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2005, 11:06
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 56
Posts: 253
As Oogle asked in the beginning about the Firehawk, I believe it was looked at very favourably here in Australia at one stage as a good medium helo replacement as most Firebombers here in oz are multi role in that they must be able to carry and rappel fire crews and drop water with the belly tank, currently the main types are 212's with Conair tanks ,(good load, good drop force of water) and 412's with simplex tanks, for the medium role and AS350 B3's for the light role, with the occasional 214B, UH1H, 205, BK117 (useless!) , S61 , Mi8, and Skycranes, but of all of these the S61 is old ,UH1H,Mi8, 214B and Skycrane can not carry pax.(Ex mil or restricted use). and unfortunatly the Firehawk falls into the restricted catagory here as it's based on the S70 A a military machine (with T700's), If you could get an S70 C Firehawk with CT7's approved to do the same job as the S70 A Firehawk (High load cycles!!) you would have a winner (and maintained to a civil style maintenance system) but while the Firehawk is military airframe based it won't fill the multi role requirement like a 205/212/412, despite being less capable
Blackhawk9 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2005, 11:13
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,012
mustangpilot, if that is what you want to believe you do so, it must make you feel good at night. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about, but that's ok,

SASless, I think your points are scattered all over the place so that only you know what they actually are, except that you want firefighting jobs, so you believe that anything LA County does is wrong.

3,000 Black Hawks all over the world fly missions every day as they have accumulated 9 million hours. Three of these aircraft are fighting fires in LA County, who love the aircraft so much they bought the extra one after several seasons. Many more tank kits exist and are used worldwide to fight fires, and they work well.
NickLappos is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2005, 16:06
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: washington
Posts: 36
SaSless and Rotormatic: Looks like we can declare victory and start another post.

Thanks for the debate Nick.
mustangpilot is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2005, 21:07
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,012
mustangpilot,

Anytime!

fly safely (do you really fly a mustang?)
NickLappos is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2005, 22:08
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: washington
Posts: 36
Nick:

Yes, I have about 150 hours in the P-51D now. It is better than sex and yes I am doing it right.

Enjoy!
mustangpilot is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 08:06
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,604
Nick,

I just wish I had a small part of Mustang's toy box. The yellow one would do me.
SASless is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 10:16
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,012
With regards to sex, the worst one I ever had was....... excellent!
NickLappos is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 10:28
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,604
Nick,

I guess now you just hum refrains of the old hymn....."Precious Memories".
SASless is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 10:57
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,684
Phew......is that the time!
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 13:04
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: states
Age: 64
Posts: 143
Engine Cycles

Looks like the FAA is catching on about life limits on the engines......

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model
rotormatic is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.