Comanche

[Rob Lyman]

The issue most likely won't be found by looking for accidents, the issue may be found in DA-level groundings of the aircraft related to the stabilator function. IIRC, there was at least one fleet grounding for stabilator problems. The nickname most likely came from such a grounding, not that it has a proven track record of becoming a lawn dart. The potential for such an event is almost more foreboding, as if Sikorsky hadn't quite figured their own machine out to make it safe enough.

The groundings are enlightening. I think a better analysis would be to see what the Air Force and Navy reactions were for their fleet of hawks during the same period. Unfortunately the Army got theirs much earlier. The presense or omission of the cyclic slew button speaks volumes on the two services reaction to the problem, 20 to 30 years later. I'll check today with a CCAD pilot who has Pavehawk time and see if the Air Force has the switch on their Pavehawks. I am not sure how telling that will be. I remember him saying how unimpressed he was with the sophistication of the airframe.

 

At any rate, examining the past and present of the H-60 you can see how cloudy the truth can be regarding the fielding of a new aircraft such as the Comanche or Osprey.

[Justin DBC]

I've got to admit... I wasn't aware that the Seahawk didn't have a slew-up switch. Pretty much everything I've been told since I started working on the Blackhawk is contradictory to what you are saying, but then again, I've seen more out of control rumors. Personally, I was not even old enough to join the military when they were having the stab problems so I'm going off of what the Army is telling me. If they tell me to stay out of certain areas to ensure that those problems don't repeat themselves... I think I'll play it safe and listen to them.

 

Once again, I'm not dogging the airframe. I wouldn't want to fly in anything else. I'm just very currious why the Army is putting this out as truth and other branches apparently whole-heartedly disagree.

 

J-

[Pogue]

I'm pretty sure the Pavehawk has the slew switch - we had Air Force students and instructors in our 15T class at Ft Eustis and that wasn't identified as a difference between the birds. As far as the SeaHawk goes, if you think about it the ASW/shipboard utility/SAR mission doesn't put the aircraft in the environment where the stabilator slewing problem occurred. The Sea Hawk may also have been speced to tighter RFI standards what with the sensor package. The Navy has some UH-60's (HH-60's?) as well, I'd be interested in seeing if the had the slew switch.

[Rob Lyman]

I personally have flown the Navy's SH-60B, SH-60F an HH-60H. None had the cyclic slew.

 

The CCAD guy confirmed this morning that the Pavehawk did have the cyclic slew.

 

EMI hardening was definitely one of the other changes the Navy addressed. If you have ever seen a stabilator drive full down while on the back of an Aegis cruiser with noone in the aircraft, it will open your eyes.

 

I am not sure I'll buy the difference in mission. Night takeoffs unaided from the back of a small ship are not the place you would want the stab to fail.

 

If I had to put money on it, I would say the Army did have some problems that involved training and some design shortcomings. The Navy, who needed a significantly redesigned hawk for shipboard use, decided the fears of the Army were either unwarranted, or were addressed by training and possibly EMI hardening. They opted out of the cyclic slew and more involved stabilator checks on runup

 

If by the term "Lawn Dart" you mean the aircraft was unsafe and should not have been fielded, than the term is not deserved. By and far, most Army, and later Navy and Air Force pilots had no problems operating the aircraft safely. Leave it up to military pilots to operate an aircraft in a manner that the designers never thought about.

 

The V-22 may end up the same way. It is hard to say. Few would disagree that it represents a bolder departure from conventional designs than did the Blackhawk when it was first fielded.

 

Speaking of departures from the norm, it will be interesting to see the UH-60M upgrade 1 that is fly by wire. A source at Sikorsky told me they have been running the flight controls remotely in their facility continuously for over a year. No broom closet and no cables to the tail rotor! I am not sure I am ready for that.

[Linc]

As I mentioned, "Lawn Dart" probably came about because of other airframe pilots hearing of the issue, whether it was an isolated event or simply an Army-wide grounding. Similar issues have happened because of events that aren't totally explained to the lay Soldier in the field. For instance, the selection of the Bell 206A for the OH-58A over the OH-6 has for many years, and in some cases even now, been blamed on Lady Byrd Johnson owning some stock in Bell Helicopters. Only nobody ever has proof or references. The reality is that Howard Hughes severely underbid his OH-6 in the hopes that he could develop dependency and recoup his lost money on subsequent orders. Come to find out, that the same feeling had been generated by the selection of another helicopter for another service when Johnson had been serving as Vice President, using the same reasoning; that the selection was intended to raise the stock of a company.

 

Chalk it all up to Army Aviation urban legends unless someone can show you historical documents that justify the conclusions.