O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo..?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo..?
...Over here in the lake!
Just when you thought there was no-one looking and it was safe to go skinny dipping, another pesky camera laden tourist whips out their equipment and posts you on YouTube.
Tea and biscuits with the boss chaps?
McH
Just when you thought there was no-one looking and it was safe to go skinny dipping, another pesky camera laden tourist whips out their equipment and posts you on YouTube.
Tea and biscuits with the boss chaps?
McH
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: US
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would take a guess that, just maybe, the t/r pulled thru this stunt?! But I'm also guessing that the pilot may have over-torqued when pulling off the water.
Would be kinda interesting to know the deal if there are any Army jocks in the know and willing to tell the story.
Tahoe is where I usually ski!
HM
Would be kinda interesting to know the deal if there are any Army jocks in the know and willing to tell the story.
Tahoe is where I usually ski!
HM
This has to be one of the ALL time classic quotes ever made by a military pilot......
“Somebody has to be a total moron to do it in total view of tourists and in a recreational area, when everyone has a camera these days. We don’t really have morons flying naval aircraft,”
Read it in full Here
“Somebody has to be a total moron to do it in total view of tourists and in a recreational area, when everyone has a camera these days. We don’t really have morons flying naval aircraft,”
Read it in full Here
Two Navy helicopters from North Island Naval Air Station were damaged, and their pilots are now grounded, after some bizarre flying over Lake Tahoe last week.
A Navy spokesman confirmed Thursday that a video posted on YouTube is genuine footage of two MH-60 Romeo helicopters from North Island’s Helicopter Maritime Strike 41 squadron.
The video shows the $33 million helicopters flying low over the lake. One seems to lose control, spinning and crashing into the water. The pilot then regains control and pulls the craft back into the air.
The Navy wouldn’t identify the pilots or say whether the helicopters were supposed to be hovering over Lake Tahoe, only saying that the entire Sept. 13 flight is under investigation.
The pilots are not flying until the Navy wraps up an aviation mishap board investigation, said Lt. Aaron Kakiel, spokesman for the Naval Air Forces command at North Island.
Lake Tahoe is not a normal training area for Navy pilots, he said.
The pilots could face administrative action — and even lose their flying qualifications — depending on the outcome of the investigation.
Though the YouTube video only catches one crashing, both helicopters hit the water because they didn’t have sufficient power to hold their hovering positions, Kakiel said.
The damage suffered by the two aircraft is estimated at between $50,000 and $500,000. They had to land at Lake Tahoe Airport to be repaired.
Watching the video made retired Navy jet pilot Steve Diamond think the helicopter crew may have had a legitimate reason to be hovering over Lake Tahoe.
Somebody out hotdogging probably wouldn’t do it in view of another aircrew, or over a popular tourist destination, said Diamond, who retired in 2002.
“Somebody has to be a total moron to do it in total view of tourists and in a recreational area, when everyone has a camera these days. We don’t really have morons flying naval aircraft,” he said.
“It’s possible they were troubleshooting a problem; you don’t know,” Diamond said. “It’s easy to make a snap judgment, but there are other possibilities.”
A different set of pilots flew the aircraft home, Kakiel said. HSM-41, which trains new pilots, dispatched another crew on a commercial flight to fly the helicopters back Sept. 16.
The MH-60 Romeo is the Navy’s newest helicopter and is considered state of the art. Its usual missions take it over the open ocean for anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare.
The MH-60s were flying home from Mather Air Force Base near Sacramento where they had taken part in an air show. Needing to refuel, the pilots were headed to Lemoore Naval Air Station when the incident happened.
A typical crew for the MH-60 Romeo is a pilot, co-pilot and crewman.
A Navy spokesman confirmed Thursday that a video posted on YouTube is genuine footage of two MH-60 Romeo helicopters from North Island’s Helicopter Maritime Strike 41 squadron.
The video shows the $33 million helicopters flying low over the lake. One seems to lose control, spinning and crashing into the water. The pilot then regains control and pulls the craft back into the air.
The Navy wouldn’t identify the pilots or say whether the helicopters were supposed to be hovering over Lake Tahoe, only saying that the entire Sept. 13 flight is under investigation.
The pilots are not flying until the Navy wraps up an aviation mishap board investigation, said Lt. Aaron Kakiel, spokesman for the Naval Air Forces command at North Island.
Lake Tahoe is not a normal training area for Navy pilots, he said.
The pilots could face administrative action — and even lose their flying qualifications — depending on the outcome of the investigation.
Though the YouTube video only catches one crashing, both helicopters hit the water because they didn’t have sufficient power to hold their hovering positions, Kakiel said.
The damage suffered by the two aircraft is estimated at between $50,000 and $500,000. They had to land at Lake Tahoe Airport to be repaired.
Watching the video made retired Navy jet pilot Steve Diamond think the helicopter crew may have had a legitimate reason to be hovering over Lake Tahoe.
Somebody out hotdogging probably wouldn’t do it in view of another aircrew, or over a popular tourist destination, said Diamond, who retired in 2002.
“Somebody has to be a total moron to do it in total view of tourists and in a recreational area, when everyone has a camera these days. We don’t really have morons flying naval aircraft,” he said.
“It’s possible they were troubleshooting a problem; you don’t know,” Diamond said. “It’s easy to make a snap judgment, but there are other possibilities.”
A different set of pilots flew the aircraft home, Kakiel said. HSM-41, which trains new pilots, dispatched another crew on a commercial flight to fly the helicopters back Sept. 16.
The MH-60 Romeo is the Navy’s newest helicopter and is considered state of the art. Its usual missions take it over the open ocean for anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare.
The MH-60s were flying home from Mather Air Force Base near Sacramento where they had taken part in an air show. Needing to refuel, the pilots were headed to Lemoore Naval Air Station when the incident happened.
A typical crew for the MH-60 Romeo is a pilot, co-pilot and crewman.
Chief Bottle Washer
Maybe the DA was a bit more than they expected?
Lake Tahoe is 6200' AMSL, and average maximum temp this time of the year is about 22C: DA would probably be near to 9000ft, enough to test most manouevres
Lake Tahoe is 6200' AMSL, and average maximum temp this time of the year is about 22C: DA would probably be near to 9000ft, enough to test most manouevres
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Weatherford, Texas
Age: 55
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that a lack of performance planning on their part! Oh how I wish I could hear the radio chatter between both aircraft after this happend...PRICELESS I BET!!
US Navy taking a dip?
Unemployed Helicopter Pilots
Oddly enough, those two posts were one atop the other when I opened the forum today, and I chuckled at the poignant juxtaposition of the two topics.
As to putting the bird into Lake Tahoe ...
Unemployed Helicopter Pilots
Oddly enough, those two posts were one atop the other when I opened the forum today, and I chuckled at the poignant juxtaposition of the two topics.
As to putting the bird into Lake Tahoe ...
Chief Bottle Washer
Deja vu, all over again
Back in 2002, we had a thread Blackhawk Accident was NOT settling with Power. Well worth a read, especially Nick Lappos' contributions (Post #9 and others) in the light of this Lake Tahoe incident 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a good chat with a Romeo Instructor Pilot from NASNI a few months back, and was pretty surprised at their OGE hover numbers for sea level on a warm day... I believe he said that at their average mission GW, they were steady in the triple digits for torque on a slightly balmy day over the ocean while dipping sonar (OGE). Not hard to see how doing the same thing up in the mountains might not be wise given the less than stellar altitude performance of the T700 when powering a H-60. The gent I spoke with was talking about how they were purposely trying to get higher performing engines out of maintenance so they had extra power (greater than 1.0 ETF) because the margins were just that close. Those things are pretty damn heavy.
Something else that I am curious about... I believe all the Seahawk family have a "Contingency Power" switch which re-references the TGT limiters on both engines' ECU/DECs to the OEI rating, while AEO. Curious if the pilots at hand were planning on it being on, when it was actually not. Get into an OGE hover, start falling through, find the button (which I believe is on their collective head) right as you hit the water possibly? Would explain the (relatively) spirited fly away. We have the option on our 'Hawks, and just about nobody turns the thing off. It's just always there just in case, so if it wasn't one time by chance, it could be a surprise and let you get into a situation like that in the video.
Yet another testament to the ole Hawk though, those things can take a beating. Pretty amazing to watch them fly away from that one.
Mike
Something else that I am curious about... I believe all the Seahawk family have a "Contingency Power" switch which re-references the TGT limiters on both engines' ECU/DECs to the OEI rating, while AEO. Curious if the pilots at hand were planning on it being on, when it was actually not. Get into an OGE hover, start falling through, find the button (which I believe is on their collective head) right as you hit the water possibly? Would explain the (relatively) spirited fly away. We have the option on our 'Hawks, and just about nobody turns the thing off. It's just always there just in case, so if it wasn't one time by chance, it could be a surprise and let you get into a situation like that in the video.
Yet another testament to the ole Hawk though, those things can take a beating. Pretty amazing to watch them fly away from that one.
Mike
From the MH-60S Flight Manual (IIRC, uses the same engine on the R, I'd need to do a little checking).
UPDATE: Yes, Romeo uses the same engine, same rating. (Heavier bird ...)
UPDATE: Yes, Romeo uses the same engine, same rating. (Heavier bird ...)
The MH-60S helicopter is equipped with two T700-GE-401C engines.
At sea level and 59 °F (15 °C), the T700-GE-401C engine has a maximum continuous rating of 1,662 shaft horsepower (shp), an intermediate rating of 1,800 shp for a 30-minute duration, and a selectable contingency power rating of 1,940 shp available for 2.5 minutes duration.
At sea level and 59 °F (15 °C), the T700-GE-401C engine has a maximum continuous rating of 1,662 shaft horsepower (shp), an intermediate rating of 1,800 shp for a 30-minute duration, and a selectable contingency power rating of 1,940 shp available for 2.5 minutes duration.
I seem to recall at one time a recommendation from Sikorsky that a more powerful engine (can't recall the number, there was a T in it) be fitted to the SH-60R (which has become the MH-60R). At the time, there was also a recommendation to put the wide chord blade on the Romeo -- which blade is on the UH-60M presently (IIRC), but I don't think it is on the Romeo.
Or did the Navy finally decide yes on that?
I also recall some hot and heavy day performance numbers that were not pretty: (typical scenario, no-wind T/O and land in the Persian Gulf with a full load of weapons and stores).
Looks like high and heavy is likewise to be managed with care.
Note in re contingency power, somewhat dated, as am I,
and it's B model memory.
Typically selected when doing ship board ops (TO/Land), hover work, cargo hauling with external load, single engine training work as your friend at NASNI doubtless does down at Imperial Beach.
Note in re contingency power, somewhat dated, as am I,
and it's B model memory. Typically selected when doing ship board ops (TO/Land), hover work, cargo hauling with external load, single engine training work as your friend at NASNI doubtless does down at Imperial Beach.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 28th Sep 2010 at 20:04.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T700-GE701D has 1,994 SHP and powers the UH60M and Block 2 apache.
One wonders why they would not have chosen this .
One wonders why they would not have chosen this .
Last edited by widgeon; 28th Sep 2010 at 21:55. Reason: error.
widgeon, that's a good question.
I think part of the answer lies on large muscle movement logistic and fleet support considerations, and thus program cost. Romeo preceded UH-60X which became UH-60M by a few years. At the time of the decisions on engines, (before the year 2000) keeping the T700 was one way to keep program costs down. (During the Clinton admin, there wasn't much money to spare on any program ... different topic).
T700 was the common engine for, from NAVAIR's point of view, Cobra and seahawk, which by that point were B, F, S, and now R models.
It may be that with the UH-60M being brought into and beyond IOC (200 or so have been delivered to the Army so far), Navy may re-look their Romeo engine and perhaps make the step to put a little more power up there. That would probably happen during depot/SDLM cycle, if ever, and take a decade to implement.
Not sure what CG/weight/load/airframe mods would be needed to do that, or if it's even cost effective to do so.
EDITED: I think the Navy would rename that engine "401D" if they got it, since they tend to use "401" where the Army uses "701" for reasons I do not recall. I had it explained to me some years ago, but I've lost that bit of memory.
I think part of the answer lies on large muscle movement logistic and fleet support considerations, and thus program cost. Romeo preceded UH-60X which became UH-60M by a few years. At the time of the decisions on engines, (before the year 2000) keeping the T700 was one way to keep program costs down. (During the Clinton admin, there wasn't much money to spare on any program ... different topic).
T700 was the common engine for, from NAVAIR's point of view, Cobra and seahawk, which by that point were B, F, S, and now R models.
It may be that with the UH-60M being brought into and beyond IOC (200 or so have been delivered to the Army so far), Navy may re-look their Romeo engine and perhaps make the step to put a little more power up there. That would probably happen during depot/SDLM cycle, if ever, and take a decade to implement.
Not sure what CG/weight/load/airframe mods would be needed to do that, or if it's even cost effective to do so.
EDITED: I think the Navy would rename that engine "401D" if they got it, since they tend to use "401" where the Army uses "701" for reasons I do not recall. I had it explained to me some years ago, but I've lost that bit of memory.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a mixed bag fleet of 701C's and D's here and really don't much notice the difference. C to D is a drop in replacement, and there is a mod kit to convert straight 700 ships (A models) to 701Ds. The 701C and 401C are pretty much the same engine and the D isn't really that big of a gain over either... hell its just a few pieces swapped out, like a sport tuning I'd say. The -D engine helps a bit at altitude but isn't the upgrade that the Hawk really needs, though the fact that one day D engines started showing up and just got dropped in the aircraft, and that all our C's are being converted to D's when they go in for rebuild, proves it was an extremely smart logistical choice; getting a little bit of performance without so much as a hiccup on the flight line.
Looking forward to an upcoming introduction of a CT7-8 derivative, somewhere in the 2500shp range, with the wide chord blades. The idea was to make a Hawk that doesn't start losing performance the second it breaks sea level and I think that's the right track to follow.
Mike
Edit: From what I understand the "400" series T700s are marinized, with some better corrosion protection inside and out.
Looking forward to an upcoming introduction of a CT7-8 derivative, somewhere in the 2500shp range, with the wide chord blades. The idea was to make a Hawk that doesn't start losing performance the second it breaks sea level and I think that's the right track to follow.
Mike
Edit: From what I understand the "400" series T700s are marinized, with some better corrosion protection inside and out.
I agree, twinhueyman, the CT7-8 (S-92's engine, right?) is IIRC a 2500ish hp machine. Would be nice to see it fitted to a Seahawk, but I wonder if there would not be significant transmission limitations. I recall the T-58's on the SH-2. The original H-2 was single engine. When it got two T-58's, , when it went twin.
I found on the GE website no page for "marinized D" (401D versus 701D). This has my curiousity up. I'll try and email a few friends who (still, I hope) know what NAVAIR has in mind for the Romeo, in terms of engine upgrade ... if anything. The T700 401 to 401C upgrade was a good idea at the time.
Yes, 401 was marinized version of 701.
I found on the GE website no page for "marinized D" (401D versus 701D). This has my curiousity up. I'll try and email a few friends who (still, I hope) know what NAVAIR has in mind for the Romeo, in terms of engine upgrade ... if anything. The T700 401 to 401C upgrade was a good idea at the time.
Yes, 401 was marinized version of 701.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The decision to stick with the 401C for the R wasn't a cost issue, it simply wasn't part of the requirement. When originally developed in the mid-1990s, the LAMPS MkIII Block II upgrade was primarily intended as a SLEP to keep a consolidated Seahawk fleet (consisting of reman'd Bs and Fs) flying until 2015, the focus being on mission equipment.
The M actually derived from the L+ effort, not the X (aka FUR, for which a 3K engine was planned). Being again a mid-1990s project, the L+ was conceived long before 6K/95 became a requirement, hence the minor power improvement offered by the 701D. The more significant improvement offered by the 701D is in terms of engine life, the result of a joint effort by GE and CCAD.
There is one section of the Hawk community already benefitting from a more powerful engine: SOCOM's new MH-60Ms are equipped with the 2,600 shp FADEC-equipped T706-GE-700 (CT7-8B5). There are no plans at this time to migrate the T706 to the vanilla UH/HH-60M (Block I retains the 701D, with the Block II intended to jump straight to a 3K class engine in the shape of the GE3000 or HPW3000).
I/C
The M actually derived from the L+ effort, not the X (aka FUR, for which a 3K engine was planned). Being again a mid-1990s project, the L+ was conceived long before 6K/95 became a requirement, hence the minor power improvement offered by the 701D. The more significant improvement offered by the 701D is in terms of engine life, the result of a joint effort by GE and CCAD.
There is one section of the Hawk community already benefitting from a more powerful engine: SOCOM's new MH-60Ms are equipped with the 2,600 shp FADEC-equipped T706-GE-700 (CT7-8B5). There are no plans at this time to migrate the T706 to the vanilla UH/HH-60M (Block I retains the 701D, with the Block II intended to jump straight to a 3K class engine in the shape of the GE3000 or HPW3000).
I/C
The decision to stick with the 401C for the R wasn't a cost issue, it simply wasn't part of the requirement. When originally developed in the mid-1990s, the LAMPS MkIII Block II upgrade was primarily intended as a SLEP to keep a consolidated Seahawk fleet (consisting of reman'd Bs and Fs) flying until 2015, the focus being on mission equipment.
The M actually derived from the L+ effort, not the X (aka FUR, for which a 3K engine was planned). Being again a mid-1990s project, the L+ was conceived long before 6K/95 became a requirement, hence the minor power improvement offered by the 701D.
The more significant improvement offered by the 701D is in terms of engine life, the result of a joint effort by GE and CCAD.
There is one section of the Hawk community already benefitting from a more powerful engine: SOCOM's new MH-60Ms are equipped with the 2,600 shp FADEC-equipped T706-GE-700 (CT7-8B5).
There are no plans at this time to migrate the T706 to the vanilla UH/HH-60M (Block I retains the 701D, with the Block II intended to jump straight to a 3K class engine in the shape of the GE3000 or HPW3000).