HP Black Hawk
Thread Starter
HP Black Hawk
Doing some research, I've found this (never heard about before):
https://www.hphelicopters.com/hp-blackhawk/
Does anybody have flown or know someone that works on one of them? What are your impressions/opinions? I'm curious about manuals, spare parts, technical support and if it is certified outside the US.
https://www.hphelicopters.com/hp-blackhawk/
Does anybody have flown or know someone that works on one of them? What are your impressions/opinions? I'm curious about manuals, spare parts, technical support and if it is certified outside the US.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a number of companies in the US that pursued their own type certificate rather than paying the 200k to Brainerd to buy firehawk type certificates. It’s a paperwork exercise and inspection by the FAA. Timberline,Pjs, Avista, Billings, Coastal etc etc all have their own type certificate with names such as Timberhawk, Utilityhawk, Mountainhawk etc etc
I have worked with HP. Small company with one hawk and a uh1h+++.
There is a huge supply of parts with companies such as Brown Helicopters in Florida having purchased over a 100 blackhawks from gsa and selling them as parts. Many companies doing similar. As far as manuals and experience, it is a proven machine so no shortage of either. It has transitioned well into its new role in the utility world.
On international assignments, Billings sold one hawk to a SouthAfrican company. Also there is a Blackhawk currently working in New Zealand. Plenty hawks buzzing around Australia on fire season.
I have worked with HP. Small company with one hawk and a uh1h+++.
There is a huge supply of parts with companies such as Brown Helicopters in Florida having purchased over a 100 blackhawks from gsa and selling them as parts. Many companies doing similar. As far as manuals and experience, it is a proven machine so no shortage of either. It has transitioned well into its new role in the utility world.
On international assignments, Billings sold one hawk to a SouthAfrican company. Also there is a Blackhawk currently working in New Zealand. Plenty hawks buzzing around Australia on fire season.
Last edited by hookes_joint; 18th Aug 2019 at 00:01.
Restricted
I need to embellish what I initially said in this post below. Sikorsky will be happy to sell you a brand new S70i but it comes with NO type certificate. Therefore you can only operate it if you are a public agency. So I should not have stated that the S70 comes as restricted. There was some talk that they might obtain a restricted certificate for it and there were some earlier S70s that were under a restricted certificate that was serial number specific and does not cover the new S70s.
All of the Black Hawk variants ( including the newly manufactured S70i that may be purchased directly from Sikorsky) that are ex-military aircraft are in the restricted category. Some countries do not allow restricted category operations. Restricted category aircraft cannot be operated outside the US without the written permission of the country in which you wish to operate. To say that the companies that have been granted type certificates are now the manufacturer bears the need for some explanation of that statement. We all know the US military and the original manufacturer hold the engineering data for these aircraft. Some of these type certificate holders have the engineering capability to always be on top of the aging process and some may not. Getting the TC is not too difficult, witness how many have done that, but providing years of after purchase support and product improvment may be the test. Talk to Sikorsky and ask how they view their role, if they even have one, in providing any sort of support for these aircraft. I think it is a good thjng that this is being done and am all in favor of ex military ships gettjng various levels of refurbishment and going into the civil world but be aware of who you are crawing into bed with for long term support.
All of the Black Hawk variants ( including the newly manufactured S70i that may be purchased directly from Sikorsky) that are ex-military aircraft are in the restricted category. Some countries do not allow restricted category operations. Restricted category aircraft cannot be operated outside the US without the written permission of the country in which you wish to operate. To say that the companies that have been granted type certificates are now the manufacturer bears the need for some explanation of that statement. We all know the US military and the original manufacturer hold the engineering data for these aircraft. Some of these type certificate holders have the engineering capability to always be on top of the aging process and some may not. Getting the TC is not too difficult, witness how many have done that, but providing years of after purchase support and product improvment may be the test. Talk to Sikorsky and ask how they view their role, if they even have one, in providing any sort of support for these aircraft. I think it is a good thjng that this is being done and am all in favor of ex military ships gettjng various levels of refurbishment and going into the civil world but be aware of who you are crawing into bed with for long term support.
Last edited by roscoe1; 18th Aug 2019 at 21:13.
Is anyone aware of those S-70’s being utilized in logging operations? I saw the Timberline site, which had an S-70+ as they termed it, with a couple of 701D’s installed. Didn’t say which main box was in it.
Did they use the Seahawk engines and MGB I wonder?
https://www.sikorskyarchives.com/S70...0Q%20K%20G.php
https://www.sikorskyarchives.com/S70...0Q%20K%20G.php
SAS, I think that the airframes made available to the civil market are all former US Army A models, and it looks like the purchasers were able to get FAA TC’s for them, and at least the one I found with a web site, Timberline, had installed the latest UH-60 M engines ( 701D ). The question then, is whether they have the original 2800SHP main box or the newer 3400SHP main box. That web site doesn’t say. Anyhow, with the 701D/2800SHP box you still get pretty decent hot/high improvement over the original 60A. To your question re the USN components: last I had seen, the USN latest engine was the 701C ( but with the FADEC ). I’d be very surprised to see the aftermarket go in that direction.
As a friend of mine wrote earlier today, the questions that arise with the various TC’s have to do with publication accuracy/updates, configuration control, and then, and importantly, their usage spectrum. Hence the previous question re logging, and which main box is in those modified ships. My friend reminded of the SA/FAA actions and inspections re the S-61 models that had gone into the logging business.
As a friend of mine wrote earlier today, the questions that arise with the various TC’s have to do with publication accuracy/updates, configuration control, and then, and importantly, their usage spectrum. Hence the previous question re logging, and which main box is in those modified ships. My friend reminded of the SA/FAA actions and inspections re the S-61 models that had gone into the logging business.
Along with the S-61's.....did the 54's have to do the same kind of data study for logging work?
The industry certainly proved the UH-1 was not built for the stresses that logging puts on the aircraft.
The industry certainly proved the UH-1 was not built for the stresses that logging puts on the aircraft.
SAS, good question re the 64 data study. Seems to me that we did a short, limited scope flight test looking at the 64 approach vibration effect on the engine deck, but I don’t recall doing a complete, separate, fully instrumented flight loads survey using the logging load spectrum and maneuvers as the basis. We certainly have not done that task on the S-70. Our former Executive VP Jack McKenna wrote a great little book entitled simply “ Sky Crane “ which tells in some detail the impact of the logging spectrum on the Erickson S-64’s and their efforts to resolve those issues ( along with coordination by SA Engr ).
TCDS R00052SE Rev 1 Timberline Helicopters, Inc.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct. While I wasn't paying attention (I'm retired) Sikorsky followed through when I said there was talk of their getting FAA certification for new production S70 aircraft. In fact it was just this March that the M appeared as a new restricted ship. Good on them. The public agencies don't need it but the private operators can now plunk down a bunch of millions and buy a new one and go put out fires etc. It would also mean that the ones bought by agencies could be sold to private operators when the agency is done with them. Being un-certificated would mean they can only go to another public aircraft operator unless someone when through the certification process. I don't know how the FAA would regard a model never operated by the US military ( the S70I) as far as issuing a restricted certificate.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some non TC'ed S70i aircraft out there; in fact unless CAL FIRE and Sikorsky changed the wording of their contract, the State of California is getting S70i aircraft. Perhaps 15 or 20 years from now someone may be able to get their own restricted TC for them if California were to sell one. My only point was that the procedure would have to be what any organization would need to complete to get a restricted TC but since the S70i was not operated by the military the FAA would have to figure out the configuration it would have to meet to be certificated. If these ships are made and sold with no TC then the issue of all the mods not being traceable to FAA approved STCs would have to be dealt with. Just saying for those aircraft that fall in this group it is a little more complicated. For all I know, Sikorsky will never build another S70i; perhaps they will all be S70Ms now. It depends on what is on the data plate and there was no S70M when the S70is I'm referring to were built. I know LA county and I believe Ventura Counta in California have also written contracts for S70i aircraft. Maybe everyone just switched that to S70M. I know I would if possible. Aside from better resale possibilities, it allows the public operator to have FAA approved data that actually applies to their aircraft and the allows potential civil operators to run them in the first place.
Roscoe, you would be right on point, except for some history that I don’t think had wide knowledge. Before we worked on the UH-50M, there was a project to provide an upgraded S-70 to Turkey and it was called at the time, the S-70i. It was, shall I say, more than a little embarrassing to be delivering those ships which were far, far better equipped than the US Army’s UH-60L’s, to a non-US military customer. That situation didn’t last all that long as the M model came along rapidly. But, for the purposes of this discussion, I suppose that it may be argued that the S-70i configuration is a US military model. Stretching it a bit, but mostly correct.
Having said that, and back to the Timberline configuration, an A model with 701D engines, to my knowledge, anyway, is one that we never made. Whether an outfit like the TF-160 did it is another question.
Having said that, and back to the Timberline configuration, an A model with 701D engines, to my knowledge, anyway, is one that we never made. Whether an outfit like the TF-160 did it is another question.
Whether an outfit like the TF-160 did it is another question.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts