B 412HP-AW139-UH-60 performance comparison
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 63
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B 412HP-AW139-UH-60 performance comparison
Hello,
my company is considering the puchase of AW 139's and/or UH-60's to substitute our venerable B 412 HP's. Has anyone ever seen any side by side performance comparison? Also we have pods on each side that are mounted on NATO mounts, is there any preexisting data/pictures confirming the doability on the 139/UH-60? Any info/contact would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you!
my company is considering the puchase of AW 139's and/or UH-60's to substitute our venerable B 412 HP's. Has anyone ever seen any side by side performance comparison? Also we have pods on each side that are mounted on NATO mounts, is there any preexisting data/pictures confirming the doability on the 139/UH-60? Any info/contact would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SW Asia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no comparison between an AW139 and a Black Hawk. The useful load of the Hawk is about 10,000 lbs, almost twice that of the 139.
In fairness, the 139 is in a different class, with almost 10,000 lbs less MGW. It also must cost millions less.
Each website has detailed brochures
In fairness, the 139 is in a different class, with almost 10,000 lbs less MGW. It also must cost millions less.
Each website has detailed brochures
Does Sikorsky build S-70's now.....or is it the UH-60 blessed by the FAA?
I believe that PZL Mielec is currently manufacturing the first S-70i International Black Hawk to be built and assembled outside the USA and (they say) at a price comparable to its smaller rivals, but only time will tell.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what SAS is getting at is;
"Oh really? The S-70 has been certified in the Standard Category for Civil Use?
Must have missed that one, why are we firefighting in anything else?"
Of course, that assumes Aquila's intention is Civil Use, but without further details, the rest is up to our overly fertile imaginations.
As for Pods, aren't they a chocolate thing bought in supermarkets?
"Oh really? The S-70 has been certified in the Standard Category for Civil Use?
Must have missed that one, why are we firefighting in anything else?"
Of course, that assumes Aquila's intention is Civil Use, but without further details, the rest is up to our overly fertile imaginations.
As for Pods, aren't they a chocolate thing bought in supermarkets?
Actually....I was thinking more along the lines of what the difference is between the UH-60 military version and the S-70 civil version that would either allow or prevent the "UH-60" to be a contender for "company" use which I assumed to mean a civil application.
The second thought is whether Sikorsky has the ability to build a handful of S-70's at a reasonable price as the S-70 seems not to have set the world on fire as evidenced by the lack of them.
It is a heck of a good aircraft as proven by the success of the UH-60 but it seems to be a failure on the commerical market.
The second thought is whether Sikorsky has the ability to build a handful of S-70's at a reasonable price as the S-70 seems not to have set the world on fire as evidenced by the lack of them.
It is a heck of a good aircraft as proven by the success of the UH-60 but it seems to be a failure on the commerical market.
SASless
In response to your last post and assuming I understand you correctly; I think the following might go some way to answering your questions.
Thinking US Army and not US Navy - AIRFRAME wise I believe the UH-60 and the S-70 are the same.
As a rule (but not always the case) export versions are designated S-70-(?), but as most customers have different requirements, the dash number differs to reflect different customer specs/options.
A glance at Wikipedia would suggest that International customers are many, although uncertain of exact numbers.
Regarding commercial market, I believe that all civil Hawks are operated ‘Restricted Use’ on an ‘X Ticket’, but again stand to be corrected. As the S-70/UH-60 was purpose built for Military OPS, the design thinking was for a robust battlefield platform and not for commercial use, therefore much of the Mil design considerations (US Mil Spec crash worthiness requirements, ballistic tolerant rotors etc,), operating costs, maintenance requirements, cabin design etc., may not be suitable on a commercial basis verses similar sized civil platforms.
In response to your last post and assuming I understand you correctly; I think the following might go some way to answering your questions.
Thinking US Army and not US Navy - AIRFRAME wise I believe the UH-60 and the S-70 are the same.
As a rule (but not always the case) export versions are designated S-70-(?), but as most customers have different requirements, the dash number differs to reflect different customer specs/options.
A glance at Wikipedia would suggest that International customers are many, although uncertain of exact numbers.
Regarding commercial market, I believe that all civil Hawks are operated ‘Restricted Use’ on an ‘X Ticket’, but again stand to be corrected. As the S-70/UH-60 was purpose built for Military OPS, the design thinking was for a robust battlefield platform and not for commercial use, therefore much of the Mil design considerations (US Mil Spec crash worthiness requirements, ballistic tolerant rotors etc,), operating costs, maintenance requirements, cabin design etc., may not be suitable on a commercial basis verses similar sized civil platforms.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 63
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The purchase/exchange is for Government use so money is a factor to a point. I've seen interagency helo exchanges for a few bucks in the past, but that applies only to the UH-60 or similarly colored birds.
It was more of a performance related question. The question I have now is: has anybody ever seen the NATO mounts seen on this pic or anything similar, adapted for the 139?
File
oe-412-N411DE-070719-07-16.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sorry for the confusion and thank you for the inputs!
It was more of a performance related question. The question I have now is: has anybody ever seen the NATO mounts seen on this pic or anything similar, adapted for the 139?
File
oe-412-N411DE-070719-07-16.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSorry for the confusion and thank you for the inputs!
You can't compare them.
Why do you want external fuel, with the internal fuel you already reach Max. weight.
You can pay Agusta for the certification of pods Or you can wait a few years...
AW149
Regards
Aser
Why do you want external fuel, with the internal fuel you already reach Max. weight.
You can pay Agusta for the certification of pods Or you can wait a few years...
AW149
Regards
Aser
