Some Pics from Army Flight Test...

[arkhunter2002]

My condolences, glad to see you are doing better.

Take care,

Austin

[hawkwrench]

Matt, I'm sorry about the loss of your wife and I'm praying for you my friend! Glad your back and just remember, God will heal the hurt!

[EDWMatt]

Wow, guys, thank you SO much for all the kind sentiments. This really is a great community!

It's been a big adjustment for me, but I've got a lot of support, and life must go on... My poor wife had been in pain for some time, resulting from an aircraft accident years ago, but it had gotten so bad she was forced to take a disability retirement from work, and it continued to get worse to the point that it was difficult for her to do things anymore, so in some respect I suppose it may be a blessing, as she's no longer in pain. BTW, she was a modeler also. She liked to build sci-fi (mostly Star Trek)

Those blivets on the '58 (and I see they're on the Cobra also) have me baffled. I don't think they're camera housings, as there aren't any optical windows. I notice they're constructed so the sides are parallel to the longitudinal axis of the helo, so I suspect they are mounts for something. Perhaps laser reflectors for tracking by a ground sensor or maybe mounts for IR calibration blackbodies? If I could find the full-text reports it might say, but they don't seem to be on DTIC.

[Tank]

Wow, guys, thank you SO much for all the kind sentiments. This really is a great community!

It's been a big adjustment for me, but I've got a lot of support, and life must go on... My poor wife had been in pain for some time, resulting from an aircraft accident years ago, but it had gotten so bad she was forced to take a disability retirement from work, and it continued to get worse to the point that it was difficult for her to do things anymore, so in some respect I suppose it may be a blessing, as she's no longer in pain. BTW, she was a modeler also. She liked to build sci-fi (mostly Star Trek)

Sorry for your loss, I am at a loss of words to say. It is great you where able to find someone that shares in the hobby. If it helps, you should post her builds here too. I don't think anyone would object to it.

[rotorwash]

Sorry for your loss, I am at a loss of words to say. It is great you where able to find someone that shares in the hobby. If it helps, you should post her builds here too. I don't think anyone would object to it.

And if they did, I wouldn't want em around anyway!

Ray

[EDWMatt]

Sorry for your loss, I am at a loss of words to say. It is great you where able to find someone that shares in the hobby. If it helps, you should post her builds here too. I don't think anyone would object to it.

What a neat idea, Tank. I have a couple of her builds, and I may indeed to just that! Thank you.

It was great to have a partner that shared the hobby. I never had to sneak kits into the house - she never gave me a hard time. She used to laugh at me ("you're going to have to live to be 300 to build all those models!"), but never gave me a hard time. And she surprised me once by hiring a professional cabinet maker to build me a custom display case!

Okay, but the subject of this thread it Flight Test pics, not my personal problems, so how about some more Blackhawks?

Here's the granddaddy of all Special Ops Blackhawks, the HH-60D Nighthawk:

(I apologize for the quality of these photos - I don't know if they were out of focus when they were taken or printed in poor focus)

The HH-60D was intended as an Air Force Combat SAR aircraft. It was the first aircraft to use the IBM Federal Systems (latter Litton) glass cockpit. This cockpit was also was installed in the V-22, the MC-130H and the MH-60K and MH-47E. IBM apparently didn't learn anything from the AIr Force experience with the F-16C, as this cockpit had atrocious human factors. My office mate wrote up 42 deficiencies and over 60 shortcomings against this cockpit during the MH-47 evaluation (in Army testing parlance, a deficiency is something that will either lead to the loss of the aircraft or the inability to perform the mission). The speculation that IBM had not had any pilots involved in the development of the cockpit. Boeing Helicopters had the team from Boeing Commercial that developed the 747-400 glass cockpit evaluate the IBM cockpit in an attempt to improve it, and the comment from the team was that if they proposed a cockpit like that to a commercial operator, they would be laughed out of the room! All the aircraft that used this cockpit had to go through a protracted development to get a usable system, and the configurations of the cockpits diverged from a common standard, which defeated the purpose of a common cockpit. The 160th eventually replaced this cockpit in the MH-60's and the 47's with a cockpit developed in house.

The difficulties with the cockpit and the high cost of the aircraft led to the Air Force canceling the Nighthawk program and procuring the HH-60G, with a standard steam-gage cockpit and no terrain following radar. The sole HH-60D airframe was 82-23718, a converted UH-60A.

Here's the Nighthawk flying with JUH-60A 82-23748. We did not perform the testing on the '60D, it was done by the Flight Test Center (AFFTC), but we served in an advisory roll, as AFFTC had not conducted a helicopter test project in 15 years. (Their last project had been the UH-1N in 1970). Flight Test Trivia - the Flight Test Engineer on the UH-1N program was a young Air Force civil servant by the name of Elbert L. "Burt" Rutan. Yes, THAT Burt Rutan!

Edited January 9, 2013 by EDWMatt

[arkhunter2002]

Interesting. Inspired, I quested across google in search of more pics of this bird.

I found these two...

from here

from here

Would the terrain following radar-less hawks in the USAF, such as the one below, be considered an HH-60A?

from here

Take care,

Austin

[rotorwash]

Matt and Austin,

Good stuff. Tell me is this the same airframe as above or is it a different project? This one says Army but most of the bumps and lumps look like the Nighthawk above to me. Forgive my Blackhawk ignorance.

Ray

[arkhunter2002]

I'm guessing they are different, not sure why the Army and Air Force would exchange airframes...

Another interesting point, is the HH-60D appears to have an offset FLIR.

The MH-60K rigged for testing in the 'h-60 blackhawk in action' book looks like it's serial number is 2**94. The ** I can't make out, but maybe an 61? The profile in that book is of MH-60K 26194 (they have a clear pic of it too in the book, but without the testing equipment). And then in the 'H-60 walkaround' the profile is 26378, but no picture to back it up.

And just for fun, here's the tail numbers from 1/72 kits :)

Italeri MH-60K

Army bird: 25431

AF bird: 23693

Hase HH-60D

23718 (hey! they got it right!)

Take care,

Austin

[arkhunter2002]

And a little more on blackhawks. Dunno how I found this, but it's fairly interesting...

Defense officials also have developed (acquired) a long-range biological detector, Wade said. It's a laser-scanning instrument mounted on a Blackhawk helicopter that can look out about 50 kilometers. "It can't identify specific agents, but it's looking for that telltale, cigar-shaped plume that comes from someone laying down a line source," he said.

"If we can see it 50 kilometers off, that gives us a tremendous amount of time either to prepare for it coming our way, or to go out and sample that cloud," Wade continued. "In the future, we'll have detectors that are light enough and small enough to go on an unmanned drone vehicle that will fly through the cloud, find out what it is, and report back."

Wade calls the military's 'Portal Shield' device one of its biggest successes since the Gulf War. This system, deployed in the Persian Gulf region in February 1998 during Operation Desert Thunder, is about two thirds the size of a typical office desk. It's fully modularized, self-contained, and it can detect eight different agents.

"The beauty of this device is that it's a network sensor," Wade said. Depending on the geography, as many as 18 sensors may be arrayed around a port or an airfield. The sensors talk to one another, so you're not relying on just one of them sounding an alarm.

Source

Take care,

Austin

[JakubJakepilot]

Hi,

as it is now quite a Blackhawk part of this thread, I have a few questions - why there are more than one type of ESSS pylons ? Is it something about the obstruction of the side space ? (Mainly for the SAR birds - more in next sentences) We have classic downward ESSS with 4 attachment points, downward ESSS with just 2 points (seen on MH-60Ls IIRC - and, are they just cut off 4-point pylons ?) and upward bent pylons (like on that HH-60D and now used e.g. on Japan, Malaysia VIP, South Korea SAR etc.)

And one more question - why the fuel tanks are attached, not only on helos, on OUTER pylons ? I thought that the more stuff you have closer to the fuselage, the better is "turning force" of the plane/helo. Pardon my english, dont know how to describe this. It is something about force of gravity.

Thanks for everything and great to see this thread alive again, one can see really strange beasts here !!

Jakub

[rotorwash]

I am assuming this was one of the IR suppression exhaust ideas that didn't make the cut. These are from May of 1981. Based on the info on the test, the first two pics also represent one of the earliest installs of the ALQ-144 on a Hawk.

Ray

[Rigid Rotorhead]

Matt and Austin,

Good stuff. Tell me is this the same airframe as above or is it a different project? This one says Army but most of the bumps and lumps look like the Nighthawk above to me. Forgive my Blackhawk ignorance.

Ray

Regarding the HH-60D...

Ray, the shot you posted above depicts an Army MH-60K, so yes, it's a different beast altogether than the Air Force HH-60D, though there are a lot of common features.

Austin, the shot you found of an Air Force helo flying among desert terrain is actually the exact same airframe as the other shots; it was just prior to receiving the full external modifications (Terrain-Following/Terrain-Avoidance [TF/TA] radar, FLIR, etc.). Also, as you observed, the FLIR is indeed offset to the left side of the nose.

I'm really glad to see an interest here on the HH-60D, as I have been gathering information/photos on it for awhile now. My intent is to write an article either on the Night Hawk itself, or to write one on the evolution of the HH-60G Pave Hawk, which must of course include the Night Hawk since the former was born from the eventual cancellation of the latter.

Originally, the HH-60D was intended to be a sort of "mini-Pave Low", complete with all the bells and whistles. Along with the TF/TA radar, this included a helmet-mounted display which was pretty much the IHADSS system used in the AH-64 Apache. However, as the program cost ballooned, the Air Force restructured their plans and decided to instead build a fewer number of HH-60Ds, while also fielding the HH-60E, a less expensive, less capable variant without the TF/TA radar, FLIR, or helmet-mounted display. Ultimately, and sadly, neither of the two were produced, as the cost had gone completely out of control. Starting over, the HH-60G was born.

One area in which I am unclear is when the HH-60A designation came into play. I believe it was the designation for the 10 UH-60As that the Air Force bought off-the-shelf in order to train its Night Hawk pilots. When the Night Hawk was canceled, the A-models were converted to HH-60Gs.

If anyone else has more info, I'd welcome it!

Hope this helps...

Edited January 10, 2013 by Rigid Rotorhead

[Rigid Rotorhead]

I am assuming this was one of the IR suppression exhaust ideas that didn't make the cut. These are from May of 1981. Based on the info on the test, the first two pics also represent one of the earliest installs of the ALQ-144 on a Hawk.

Ray

Ray, you're correct! That was the original IR Cruise Suppressor that only worked when the aircraft was flying at 80 knots or faster; the current one though works at any speed, including at a hover. It's known as the Hover Infrared Suppression System (HIRSS).

[Rigid Rotorhead]

What a neat idea, Tank. I have a couple of her builds, and I may indeed to just that! Thank you.

It was great to have a partner that shared the hobby. I never had to sneak kits into the house - she never gave me a hard time. She used to laugh at me ("you're going to have to live to be 300 to build all those models!"), but never gave me a hard time. And she surprised me once by hiring a professional cabinet maker to build me a custom display case!

Okay, but the subject of this thread it Flight Test pics, not my personal problems, so how about some more Blackhawks?

Here's the granddaddy of all Special Ops Blackhawks, the HH-60D Nighthawk:

(I apologize for the quality of these photos - I don't know if they were out of focus when they were taken or printed in poor focus)

The HH-60D was intended as an Air Force Combat SAR aircraft. It was the first aircraft to use the IBM Federal Systems (latter Litton) glass cockpit. This cockpit was also was installed in the V-22, the MC-130H and the MH-60K and MH-47E. IBM apparently didn't learn anything from the AIr Force experience with the F-16C, as this cockpit had atrocious human factors. My office mate wrote up 42 deficiencies and over 60 shortcomings against this cockpit during the MH-47 evaluation (in Army testing parlance, a deficiency is something that will either lead to the loss of the aircraft or the inability to perform the mission). The speculation that IBM had not had any pilots involved in the development of the cockpit. Boeing Helicopters had the team from Boeing Commercial that developed the 747-400 glass cockpit evaluate the IBM cockpit in an attempt to improve it, and the comment from the team was that if they proposed a cockpit like that to a commercial operator, they would be laughed out of the room! All the aircraft that used this cockpit had to go through a protracted development to get a usable system, and the configurations of the cockpits diverged from a common standard, which defeated the purpose of a common cockpit. The 160th eventually replaced this cockpit in the MH-60's and the 47's with a cockpit developed in house.

The difficulties with the cockpit and the high cost of the aircraft led to the Air Force canceling the Nighthawk program and procuring the HH-60G, with a standard steam-gage cockpit and no terrain following radar. The sole HH-60D airframe was 82-23718, a converted UH-60A.

Here's the Nighthawk flying with JUH-60A 82-23748. We did not perform the testing on the '60D, it was done by the Flight Test Center (AFFTC), but we served in an advisory roll, as AFFTC had not conducted a helicopter test project in 15 years. (Their last project had been the UH-1N in 1970). Flight Test Trivia - the Flight Test Engineer on the UH-1N program was a young Air Force civil servant by the name of Elbert L. "Burt" Rutan. Yes, THAT Burt Rutan!

Just tried to send you a PM, but your Inbox must be full, as the message was rejected...

Edited January 10, 2013 by Rigid Rotorhead

[EDWMatt]

Wow, some great contributions!

Austin, great finds on the HH-60D pics. The first one is from the Edwards airshow, probably 1984. And that bio detector is interesting - I've never seen that before. BTW is that dio of the MH-60 doing a fast rope to the building roof in your signature one of your builds? Was it at the IPMS Phoenix Nats? If so, masterful build, sir!

Ray, Rigid Rotorhead beat me to it, but your pic is indeed HH-60K Ship 1, 89-26194. I saw that airframe being modded at Sikorsky Main Plant when I was there for the LHX "flyoff". It was converted from a UH-60L airframe. The 60D and 60K were somewhat related - they shared the same crap IBM cockpit and, I believe, the same Texas Instruments TFR. I believe one of the major reasons for the failure of the 60D program was the choice of IBM as the prime and systems integrator when they really didn't have much weapons system (or any helicopter) experience. BTW, '60K Ship 1 was the only on from the FY 89 buy, the rest fo the 60K's came from the 91-360xx to 380xx batch.

And RR is right on the money on the old H-60 Cruise Supressor pics you posted. The HIRSS is not quite as efficient in forward flight as the Cruise Suppressor was, but it worked in a hover. I note, however, that the Special Ops 'Hawks seem to be going to a vertical 'toilet bowl' type suppressor now.

RR, the HH-60A designation predates the HH-60D, as we did an eval for the Air Force on one prior to the HH-60D flying, and 82-23718 was originally an HH-60A. I'm not sure they were purchased exclusively as trainers, I think I recall they were intended as an interim SAR aircraft until the 60D came on line.

Jakub, there are three flavors of external stores systems for H-60's. The first one developed was the External Stores Support System (ESSS). which is the most common stub wing, with two stations per side. They are multi-purpose, plumbed for fuel and also have wiring to support weapons. Early Blackhawks (I think until the '3rd year buy') did not have what are called the 'fixed provisions' , or the mounts for the ESSS. We called the ESSS the 'Long Wings'

The second support system developed is the the External Tank System (ETS). These are the gull-shaped wings with one station per side that you see on the Special Operations Blackhawks. The were originally developed for the HH-60D to raise the tanks up higher and improve the line of fire for the gunners from the gunners windows. Originally they were for fuel tanks only, but I suspect that on the MH-60's they are wired for weapons. We called the ETS the 'Gull Wings' or 'High Wings'

Finally, there is the Horizontal Stores Support (HSS). These are the stub wings that look like the ESSS, but with only a single station on each side. They were originally set up for fuel tanks only and could only mount the 230-gal tanks, not the 450's. I've also seen them used to mount weapons on Special Ops MH-60L's They were purpose built, not cut-down ESSS. I don't think too many of these systems were procured, and I don't see the system mentioned in the later versions of the UH-60 Flight Manual. The were used to carry tanks on EH-60's in Desert Storm - I did an extensive calibration project to calibrate the EH-60's direction finding system when the tanks and wings installed. We called the HSS the "Short Wings".

As for mounting the tanks on the outboard stations on the ESSS. I'm not an operational guy, I was a flight tester, I was told the tanks were mounted outboard for two reasons. The primary reason was that when the tanks were mounted inboard, it was very difficult for troops to exit the aircraft, as the fuel tanks were very close to the aircraft. I know when we had tanks on the 'short wings' on the EH-60, it was a challenge to get in and out of the helicopter main cabin!. The second reason was supposedly that it gave the gunners at least a small field of fire (they had none with the tanks installed inboard). Perhaps one of the operational guys like Hawk Wrench can comment. We always mounted the fuel tanks inboard on the Apache, however.

Okay, since Ray posted the '60K, here's another shot:

Neat shot of both the MH-60K and MH-47E landing on Taxiway Delta at the edge of the Edwards lakebed. The MH-47 is almost certainly 88-00267, the first E-model, and the '60K is likely 89-26194. Picture is about 1992-93, during the calibration of the Terrain Following Radar on both aircraft. The Edwards test range has a terrain following calibration course, so the TFR development was done at Edwards. The MH-60 was so heavily loaded in some configurations that it could only pull about 1.18 G's, which made any sort of meaningful terrain following maneuvering essentially impossible!

Hey, Ray Robb, I cleaned out my mailbox a bit, so try the PM again.

Edited January 10, 2013 by EDWMatt

[JakubJakepilot]

Hey EDWMatt, BIG BIG thanks for the explanation of support pylons, will write it down for myself - you learn new stuff every day ...

Re Desert Storm EH-60 - are you sure they were EH-60s with the HSS ??? Now THAT is interestning. I found only one pic of EH-60 in Desert Storm:

, but, it is definetly without HSS and no idea to make serial from the pic - too bad :(/> But, it is really interestning to know they were used....

Any info on MH-47Ds ? Did they have same problems as the HH-60Ds ? Or had they some better HW/SW installed in the cocpit ?

Thanks for everything !!

Jakub

[EDWMatt]

Hey EDWMatt, BIG BIG thanks for the explanation of support pylons, will write it down for myself - you learn new stuff every day ...

Re Desert Storm EH-60 - are you sure they were EH-60s with the HSS ??? Now THAT is interestning. I found only one pic of EH-60 in Desert Storm:

, but, it is definetly without HSS and no idea to make serial from the pic - too bad :(/>/> But, it is really interestning to know they were used....

Any info on MH-47Ds ? Did they have same problems as the HH-60Ds ? Or had they some better HW/SW installed in the cocpit ?

Thanks for everything !!

Jakub

Hi Jakub.

They were very definitely EH-60's. Doubt you will find any pictures, as they were in a specialized configuration.

As I recall, the MH-47D used what was called the Chinook "All Weather Cockpit", which was a standard 'steam-gage' cockpit, not a glass cockpit. Also, I believe they had weather radar, but not TFR. The MH-47E, on the other hand, had the IBM glass cockpit that was originally in the HH-60D. The MH-60K and MH-47E shared the same cockpit (along with the V-22 and MC-130H). This MH-47E cockpit is the one that I referred to earlier in the thread that the test pilot I shared an office with wrote 42 Deficiencies against. Both the MH-60 and 47 went through a protracted development process to improve the cockpit, although I saw a presentation at the Society of Experimental Test Pilots symposium a couple years back that the 160th has since junked the IBM cockpit and replaced it with one they developed in all the MH's

[arkhunter2002]

Austin, great finds on the HH-60D pics. The first one is from the Edwards airshow, probably 1984. And that bio detector is interesting - I've never seen that before. BTW is that dio of the MH-60 doing a fast rope to the building roof in your signature one of your builds? Was it at the IPMS Phoenix Nats? If so, masterful build, sir!

Yes & yes. Thanks! That build really got me hooked on dioramas...

What's the advantage of putting the same cockpit as the helos in the MC-130H?

Take care,

Austin

[hawkwrench]

Jakub, you really can't tell if that is an EH-60 just by that pic. The difference between an EH and a UH was mainly in the back on the tail boom where EH's had specialized antennas attached to the sides and a long dipole antenna on the bottom. Just by the picture it looks like a standard UH-60. The only EH's I knew of back in the 80's were EH-60's that were attached to the 313th CEWI (combat electronic warfare inntelligence). Other than the antenna package, the EH-60 looked like a standard Blackhawk. HTH

[hawkwrench]

Jakub, you really can't tell if that is an EH-60 just by that pic. The difference between an EH and a UH was mainly in the back on the tail boom where EH's had specialized antennas attached to the sides and a long dipole antenna on the bottom. Just by the picture it looks like a standard UH-60. The only EH's I knew of back in the 80's were EH-60's that were attached to the 313th CEWI (combat electronic warfare inntelligence). Other than the antenna package, the EH-60 looked like a standard Blackhawk. HTH

[hawkwrench]

Double post! Sorry for the fat-fingers

[EDWMatt]

Yes & yes. Thanks! That build really got me hooked on dioramas...

What's the advantage of putting the same cockpit as the helos in the MC-130H?

Take care,

Austin

I was very impressed by that dio. Great work. Hope to make it to the Nats this year with a couple helos.

My understanding from the Combat Talon guys (we did some airspeed cal work for them) was that the IBM cockpit was selected because it was supposedly easily re-configurable (it wasn't) and that it could accept and display multiple sensors without separate displays. I believe the MC, the HH-60D and AF CV-22 all were intended to use the same TFR and FLIR, so there would be commonality across the AF Special Ops aircraft also.

Edited January 10, 2013 by EDWMatt

[thatguy96]

This whole "common architecture" bit became really popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s from what I can tell, and remains so, especially in the USAF. Project Quiet Knight, for instance, also sought to develop common architecture for special operations aircraft during this period.

Edited January 10, 2013 by thatguy96

[rotorwash]

For all of you interested in EH-60's, here's you a "Quickfix"

Ray