• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Recycling the Sea King

beenthere said:
http://www.colheli.com/colheli.html Columbia Helicopters. They have 8 of our old worn out Labradors making money for them.

I know a logging company that found a Sea King submerged in a swamp somewhere in Indonesia, refurbished it, then put it into operation.

Did anyone on here lose a Sea King in Indonesia?
 
beenthere said:
If the Cyclone turns out to be a bummer the frigates won't have a helo.

In the unlikely event that the Cyclone turns out to be a total disaster, there are other helos on the market with a nose wheel.  Assuming we could procure something before the Frigates were decommissioned...
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Assuming we could procure something before the Frigates were decommissioned...

Even then, there would follow on ships to replace the frigates (one would hope, unless a luminary in Ottawa decides that with the worlds longest coast line, we don't need a Navy).

To add to H3's explanation: His (her?) point is valid for all aircraft operating from ships. Each has specific requirements and the ships accommodate them differently. For instance, the French Mistral class LHA's can only accommodate heavy helicopters at spot number six near the stern, the structure of the ship forward is too weak to take their landing. On aircraft carriers, the tension in the arresting wires is set differently for each type of aircraft, as is the pressure used in the catapults. Its just the way ships are: no universal capability to handle aircraft, but rather a specific capability for each type.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
On aircraft carriers, the tension in the arresting wires is set differently for each type of aircraft,

The adjustments to the arresting wires are based on aircraft weight, not aircraft type. Thus, 2 different aircraft types with the same weight will use the same wire settings.
 
Supplemental here:

An AEW capability for our Navy would be a great asset and greatly increase the capabilities of our frigates and destroyers. However, IMHO, this could and should be achieved through UAV's  under shipborne control. It would be a shame if the next generation of surface ships were no provided with the appropriate hangar space and console room in the Ops room to accommodate such capability.

PS: CDN Aviator you are partially correct: two different aircraft types may have the same setting because their weight is similar, but (by experience) what is called down to "Wire Control" is the actual type, not the weight. For instance, the air boss will call down something like: "Next trap - Tomcat" or "Next trap - Super" (for super Hornet - F18 E/F) etc. They don't discriminate or change setting for a Hornet on fumes with nothing hanging from the pylons or one all fueled up with all points full of ordnance.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Even then, there would follow on ships to replace the frigates (one would hope, unless a luminary in Ottawa decides that with the worlds longest coast line, we don't need a Navy).

To add to H3's explanation: His (her?) point is valid for all aircraft operating from ships. Each has specific requirements and the ships accommodate them differently. For instance, the French Mistral class LHA's can only accommodate heavy helicopters at spot number six near the stern, the structure of the ship forward is too weak to take their landing. On aircraft carriers, the tension in the arresting wires is set differently for each type of aircraft, as is the pressure used in the catapults. Its just the way ships are: no universal capability to handle aircraft, but rather a specific capability for each type.

or you could buy a totally inadequate helicopter for the job like the USCG did.
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2010/09/the-%E2%80%9Clegacy-bird%E2%80%9D/
 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3677646/Romantic-Kate-and-Prince-William-rule-the-waves-in-Canada.html

The Brit press has been having a field day with William practicing waterbirding as an, apparently, emergency landing procedure.

To which I have one question for our resident crew of rotary wing types:  Does the Flight Engineer apply the duct tape before or after the emergency has been declared?  ;D
 
Kirkhill said:
To which I have one question for our resident crew of rotary wing types:  Does the Flight Engineer apply the duct tape before or after the emergency has been declared?  ;D

No FE on a Sea King  ;)
 
Kirkhill said:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3677646/Romantic-Kate-and-Prince-William-rule-the-waves-in-Canada.html

The Brit press has been having a field day with William practicing waterbirding as an, apparently, emergency landing procedure.

To which I have one question for our resident crew of rotary wing types:  Does the Flight Engineer apply the duct tape before or after the emergency has been declared?  ;D

The tape on the aircraft slows water entry and protects seals against the repeated water impact.  Over an hour long waterbird session (multiplied by maybe 4-5 sorties in a day) the aircraft will impact the water at least 20 times.  Gallons of water will still drain from the aircraft during each refueling between sortis.

The technique being practised not only allows pilots to get the aircraft safely on the water in the event of an engine loss while in the "dip" (active sonar in the water), but also teaches to do a single engine running takeoff.

The reason that we are the only ones to still do it is, that, our hover height is too low to allow a pilot to recognize an engine loss and have time to fly away before hitting the water. Therefore, we teach how to hit the water and survive.

As noted this is an emergency procedure only and no, there are no FEs on Sea Kings.  Taccos and AES Ops get the dubious honour of being carried around during these sorties to mainly ensure that we haven't sprung a major leak in the back.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Taccos and AES Ops get the dubious honour of being carried around during these sorties to mainly ensure that we haven't sprung a major leak in the back.


... and to provide an extra set of hands to help bail...

>:D
 
SKT, any truth to the environmental protection function of the gun tape also being to keep POLs from leaking out into the surrounding water, like the drip pans for wheeled LF vehicles?
 
G2G,

I kind of doubt it, as most of the leaking a Sea King does is from the engines/gearboxes- and the tape is nowhere near that.

The old saying in the MH world is that you don't worry about leaks on a Sea King- you start to worry when all the leaks dry up!

Seriously, the old girl was built to a different set of tolerances- you get to learn what is normal and what is not, pretty fast.  Leaking oil and hydraulic fluid- it's kind of , well, manly.  I really got used to the smell and kind of miss it.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
G2G,

I kind of doubt it, as most of the leaking a Sea King does is from the engines/gearboxes- and the tape is nowhere near that.

The old saying in the MH world is that you don't worry about leaks on a Sea King- you start to worry when all the leaks dry up!

Seriously, the old girl was built to a different set of tolerances- you get to learn what is normal and what is not, pretty fast.  Leaking oil and hydraulic fluid- it's kind of , well, manly.  I really got used to the smell and kind of miss it.

I hear you, SKT.  If the chip panel on the Hook wasn't blinking one of its 17 lights we started worrying that the panel might be U/S.  ;)
 
Here is to manly aircraft that leak.  :salute:

An era is soon to pass into history!
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Here is to manly aircraft that leak.  :salute:

An era is soon to pass into history!

Hear, hear!

BTW, does anyone else in the world still operate an SH-3A?
 
I gotta think we have the oldest variants out there.  Ours have been upgraded several times, but they are nowhere near the current "gold standard" of glass cockpit, composite blades, 6 bladed tail rotor, 1556 databus, top level engines and gearboxes...well, you get the picture.
 
Back
Top