57 Years of TH-57s

An aerial applicator near me has three in the hangar beginning refits.
 
I'm an aviation buff and love to watch aircraft, but that video was about 90 seconds of content crammed into 17 minutes.
 
Jim_R said:
I'm an aviation buff and love to watch aircraft, but that video was about 90 seconds of content crammed into 17 minutes.
Click to expand...
That's why I essentially never watch videos on YT. They're all that way. Drag one sentence of content out to half an hour for the revenue.
 
DaleB said:
That's why I essentially never watch videos on YT. They're all that way. Drag one sentence of content out to half an hour for the revenue.
Click to expand...
I watch plenty of well-done YT videos. Practical Engineering is one of my favorite YT channels, but there are dozens of others that I follow that consistently produce high-quality content. It's silly to paint all of YT with one brushstroke.
 
Not a helicopter pilot, but these were great helicopters and I'm glad I had the opportunity to fly them a bit. In comparison, the MH-60R was smooth and easy to fly, until they turned off all the "magic". Then it became a wrestling match!

Here's hoping the TH-73 serves as well!
 
Jim_R said:
I'm an aviation buff and love to watch aircraft, but that video was about 90 seconds of content crammed into 17 minutes.
Click to expand...

What I'm hearing is that you want automated voice over with tons of errors and some techno music on top of that. Or would you prefer generic death metal? Got it.
 
Jim_R said:
I watch plenty of well-done YT videos. Practical Engineering is one of my favorite YT channels, but there are dozens of others that I follow that consistently produce high-quality content. It's silly to paint all of YT with one brushstroke.
Click to expand...
Thread drift, but Practical Engineering is fantastic content. Leave it to an engineer to get to the point. :) Just gotta skip past his Nebula segment and sponsorship sections at the end. :)
 
Logged .2 in its replacement. She’s quick. Can’t believe the Navy didn’t stick with a Bell product but from what I heard, the TH-73 literally flew circles around the B407.

IMG_0581.jpeg
IMG_0583.jpeg
IMG_0590.jpeg
 
Velocity173 said:
Logged .2 in its replacement. She’s quick. Can’t believe the Navy didn’t stick with a Bell product but from what I heard, the TH-73 literally flew circles around the B407.
Click to expand...
I know it shouldn't, but it still amazes me what the military can use as a basic trainer that would be an advanced aircraft in the civilian world, requiring hundreds if not thousands of hours to be allowed to fly.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I know it shouldn't, but it still amazes me what the military can use as a basic trainer that would be an advanced aircraft in the civilian world, requiring hundreds if not thousands of hours to be allowed to fly.
Click to expand...

If we are talking about a jet ranger 206, there’s nothing too advanced about them.
 
Doc Holliday said:
If we are talking about a jet ranger 206, there’s nothing too advanced about them.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the new Augustas. Powerful twin turbine. Granted single or twin on a helo is probably not as complicated as a twin turbine airplane.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I was thinking of the new Augustas. Powerful twin turbine. Granted single or twin on a helo is probably not as complicated as a twin turbine airplane.
Click to expand...

Ok.

Actually they are easier to fly than a piston helicopter without a governor. Plus plenty of power.

Systems wise, more complicated but their ground and flight training take care of that.

Plus motivation. Either buckle down and keep up with the program or go to the fleet as a supply officer on a ship.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I know it shouldn't, but it still amazes me what the military can use as a basic trainer that would be an advanced aircraft in the civilian world, requiring hundreds if not thousands of hours to be allowed to fly.
Click to expand...
I suppose trying to minimize the leap in tech from primary to advanced airframes. Flying an R22 wouldn’t do much in preparing a Navy student who selects H-60s. Two very different handing aircraft and systems. Plus they always fly dual cockpit so the reduced hours / experienced is shared.

But there’s something to be said about gaining experience on a hands on aircraft and doing maneuvers such as touchdown autos. I think the Army is rethinking their program of straight into twins (UH-72) prior to aircraft selection. They now start them out in TH-66s (R66) prior to attending formal military flight training. They get their civilian ratings as well…which is nice.
 
Velocity173 said:
I think the Army is rethinking their program of straight into twins (UH-72) prior to aircraft selection. They now start them out in TH-66s (R66) prior to attending formal military flight training. They get their civilian ratings as well…which is nice.
Click to expand...
I heard the same. Will interesting if the same don't come to bear at Whiting Field with the 73s especially on the mx side. Plus as you note, the mechanics can also qualify for their A&P tests as well.
 
Velocity173 said:
I suppose trying to minimize the leap in tech from primary to advanced airframes. Flying an R22 wouldn’t do much in preparing a Navy student who selects H-60s. Two very different handing aircraft and systems. Plus they always fly dual cockpit so the reduced hours / experienced is shared
Click to expand...
A few years ago it did the transition training to fixed wing for an Army helicopter pilot that had been flying Apache's in Afghanistan. He had about 400hrs of rotorwing time. When I soloed him in the Cherokee it was the 1st time he had ever flown an aircraft solo.

I understand he was supposed to do one solo flight during training. But due to a temporary prohibition on solo flights (accident investigation) that requirement was waived.

Brian
 
brcase said:
A few years ago it did the transition training to fixed wing for an Army helicopter pilot that had been flying Apache's in Afghanistan. He had about 400hrs of rotorwing time. When I soloed him in the Cherokee it was the 1st time he had ever flown an aircraft solo.

I understand he was supposed to do one solo flight during training. But due to a temporary prohibition on solo flights (accident investigation) that requirement was waived.

Brian
Click to expand...
His “solo” flight wouldn’t have been a true solo though. You fly solo with another student or “stick buddy.” Only guys who truly soloed in the Army were pre early 90s guys like @Warlock or @Piperonca. The mighty TH-55 Osage.
 
I remember riding in one of the Army's equivalents in 1973. It sure didn't have any trouble getting around Ft. Lewis.
 
donjohnston said:
What I'm hearing is that you want automated voice over with tons of errors and some techno music on top of that. Or would you prefer generic death metal? Got it.
Click to expand...
That's not at all what I said. What I meant to convey is that a video of the same helicopter taxiing back and forth for 17 minutes does not make compelling video. The main difference between watching that video and staring at a poster of a helicopter is that the rotor was blurry and the background was moving.
 
didn't the ARMY just axed 6500 aviator jobs? Apparently this whole manned flight thing is an anachronism. Guess the Navy hasn't got the memo.

As to the "advanced" trainer civ/mil chasm, fwiw the usaf is now hell bent on replacing the T-6 with a 172, and they already replaced the T-1 with "sims, and not even airline sims". "Samesies" according to the top brass. I'm picking up what they putting down, sendin the frau to fake doctor school and bob's your uncle. And I'll digress here before one of you doxxy playa hatas try and get me Art 88'd. :rofl:
 
hindsight2020 said:
didn't the ARMY just axed 6500 aviator jobs? Apparently this whole manned flight thing is an anachronism. Guess the Navy hasn't got the memo.

As to the "advanced" trainer civ/mil chasm, fwiw the usaf is now hell bent on replacing the T-6 with a 172, and they already replaced the T-1 with "sims, and not even airline sims". "Samesies" according to the top brass. I'm picking up what they putting down, sendin the frau to fake doctor school and bob's your uncle. And I'll digress here before one of you doxxy playa hatas try and get me Art 88'd. :rofl:
Click to expand...
Yep and the Army Reserves are eliminating ALL helicopter units by the end of summer. Putting (almost) all their eggs in the drone basket.
 
Velocity173 said:
I think the Army is rethinking their program of straight into twins (UH-72) prior to aircraft selection. They now start them out in TH-66s (R66) prior to attending formal military flight training. They get their civilian ratings as well…which is nice.
Click to expand...
There are a small number of students that are training in the R66 with contractors at Marianna, FL (KMAI) as a test program. They then do a short transition into the UH-72, the basic trainer the majority of the students are still beginning in. Basic VFR work, instruments, formation flying and NVGs in this short transition prior to moving onto their advanced airframe.

Two considerations going forward. One, what will the new trainer be and two, what will the Army's training program look like? It looks like the Army wants to go to an initial trainer that is cheaper to operate than the UH-72 and promotes better basic stick and rudder skills. I seriously doubt this will be the R66 since it can't be flown in actual instrument conditions. As far as the training program, if this proof of concept at KMAI proves worthy, the Army will most likely set up a similar program in the UH-72 or the next trainer at Cairns Army Airfield (KOZR) followed by some sort of intro to military flying with the initial trainer/UH-72 at Shell Army Heliport (KSXS) prior to moving onto their advanced aircraft.

You are correct that the current test classes receive their RW-helicopter private and instrument being that it is a straight up part 141 program with DPE administered practical tests. I'd be surprised if this continues to be the case when/if implemented on a larger scale. Although I'm sure the students would still get their FAA ratings through military equivalency like they currently do.
 
Last edited:
Low Level Flyer said:
There are a small number of students that are training in the R66 with contractors at Marianna, FL (KMAI) as a test program. They then do a short transition into the UH-72, the basic trainer the majority of the students are still beginning in. Basic VFR work, instruments, formation flying and NVGs in this short transition prior to moving onto their advanced airframe.

Two considerations going forward. One, what will the new trainer be and two, what will the Army's training program look like? It looks like the Army wants to go to an initial trainer that is cheaper to operate than the UH-72 and promotes better basic stick and rudder skills. I seriously doubt this will be the R66 since it can't be flown in actual instrument conditions. As far as the training program, if the this proof of concept at KMAI proves worthy, the Army will most likely set up a similar program in the UH-72 or the next trainer at Cairns Army Airfield (KOZR) followed by some sort of intro to military flying with the initial trainer/UH-72 at Shell Army Heliport (KSXS) prior to moving onto their advanced aircraft.

You are correct that the current test classes receive their RW-helicopter private and instrument being that it is a straight up part 141 program with DPE administered practical tests. I'd be surprised if this continues to be the case when/if implemented on a larger scale. Although I'm sure the students would still get their FAA ratings through military equivalency like they currently do.
Click to expand...
The UH-72 acquisition has been a complete cluster. They should’ve bought half the amount and kept them with the NG as a support aircraft. For IERW, buy the TH-73 like the Navy or maybe even something cheaper like a B505. Instead they went with an expensive and what friends say, not so reliable twin airframe. I don’t care that all (minus AH-6 / B407) Army aircraft are twins so IERW should be a twin. Getting single engine experience for autos to the ground is an invaluable skill.
 
Velocity173 said:
The UH-72 acquisition has been a complete cluster. They should’ve bought half the amount and kept them with the NG as a support aircraft. For IERW, buy the TH-73 like the Navy or maybe even something cheaper like a B505. Instead they went with an expensive and what friends say, not so reliable twin airframe. I don’t care that all (minus AH-6 / B407) Army aircraft are twins so IERW should be a twin. Getting single engine experience for autos to the ground is an invaluable skill.
Click to expand...
IIRC, all UH-72's are leased from Airbus. Not sure how long the lease terms are, but yes, someone made out like a bandit talking the Army into this.

I was in upstate NY talking to an A&P who had a job at the NG maintaining UH-72's. He was a civilian employed by the Guard. Why? The UH-72's had to be maintained per FAA requirements and required A&P sign offs per the lease agreement.
 
I was one of those who in the Army made the transition from single engine aircraft to twins. Also from solo mission flight to duel always. I really think I was a better aviator because of it. The OH-58 A/C and Original D were all single pilot and contained five radios to work different nets… Internal, Air to Air/ Close Air Support / Artillery/ C an C. Less then 20% of Army Aviators were Aeroscout pilots. Even the AH-1 could be flown single pilot and although not the norm, It happened on Ferry Flights routinely, or mail runs. Crew Chief in the front seat was not unusual for me on Test Flights.

But things change with two engines power was not an issue and transmission limitations were more important. Autorotations were demonstrated for the most part, unlike prior where power off autos were no big deal because you done 100’s of them. Never did a real Auto in an Apache.

Power management and rotor management became a side bar with twin pacs…is the modern version better? Of course it is but as equipment becomes more expensive it’s hard to justify breaking a few things to make better Aviators…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top