mattas350 wrote:
Then maybe you can answer a question for me, you say you worry about civillian m/x, well I am honestly curious about this question. The sea king- I once read with the CF Sea king's its about 20 man hours m/x wise to a flight hour, theirs several civilian helicopter companies that operate SK61L's and N's for 800-1000 hours a year on heli logging work, they work and service them off barges in salt water environments and have not had a major crash or incident in recent memory, and heli logging is quite tough on a machines engine, tranny, gear boxes and structures. why can civvie operators use the 61 in the manner they do and still manage to fly em safely 1000 hours a year from floating barges none the less, where the sea kings are much more less hours per year then that and it seems (according to news media) to have much more incidents or m/x issues?
If you do a quick read on the accidents involving Sea-kings with our navy you will come to the conclusion it is pilot induced error in the majority of the situations. Not the age of the aircraft. We also must remember a Military variant has folding main rotor blades as well as a pylon that can be uncoupled to allow it to swing. As well, the Navy has the aircraft fitted with tons of electronics and other gadgets. All these added features over and above a civilian model take many more man hours to inspect and maintain. When we are logging we are stripped out and the pilot is lucky if he has a handheld com. (just kidding they have more radios and such, just exaggerating to make a point). Everything is wide open in the cabin and accessible. That is why when logging or firefighting we have only 2 engineers maintaining a machine.
Bushav8er wrote: The military Sea Kings came into service in 1963 and I strongly suspect that they have a great deal more hours on them than civilian versions - helicopters being far more exposed to vibration, just wore out.
Well from my understanding the average life of a Sea-king is 13000 hrs. If someone knows exactly I would love to be set straight. One of our machines just hit the 40,000 mark and a couple others are sitting in the low to mid 30’s. In my opinion the military ones are not even broken in yet!
---------- ADS -----------
How can you tell which one is the pilot when you walk into a bar?....Don't worry he will come up and tell you.
And you find the Snowbirds boring? How can a slower, piston aircraft compare to the speed and noise of a jet - even a Tutor?
I can't believe someone would actually think a jet gives a better show than an piston airplane doing tail slides and all that goes with a truly good aerobatic demonstration -- but to each his own --
I am not slighting the work, skill and dedication of the Canadian team but I am to the point of embarrassment when they don't get the support and updated equipment. Contrary to the assumption I am far from being young and turned on by video games -- -- give me the snarl of an R2800 any day -- nope I maybe one of the few but formation displays while might be skillful they just don't get the heart pumping.
If the snowbirds are to live -- and the name -- sheesh -- rethink that and give them the resources and the equipment to do Canada proud --
I know -- AVRO Arrows -- now that would be something to wave the flag about
I can't believe someone would actually think a jet gives a better show than an piston airplane doing tail slides and all that goes with a truly good aerobatic demonstration -- but to each his own --
Ever seen that Stearman with the 600 h.p. radial in it L.C.?
The sound of that think doing aerobatics at an airshow has to be the most impressive show one could ever want to experience.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
So why is Harper not stepping up to right this wrong to our national skill and accomplishments? Or are we still blaming a "liberal" bogeyman who has somehow left him completely powerless? What does your man harper have to say about this, let's hear it!!
The military has already postured and told the government that the Snowbirds may be on the chopping block...http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada ... warns.html
I think Harper should call their bluff if he`s serious about defence.
Nowadays the ROI on the Snowbirds is negligible. Airshows are for old people, take a look around next time you`re at one. Kids the would rather twitter their blogs and play with their wii-wii`s. Airplanes are so 1985.
monkeyspankmasterflex wrote:Nowadays the ROI on the Snowbirds is negligible. Airshows are for old people, take a look around next time you`re at one. Kids the would rather twitter their blogs and play with their wii-wii`s. Airplanes are so 1985.
I agree, the ROI is limited here compared to the USA or UK, who have larger air forces to recruit for and bigger defence industries to promote. However, the fact that Canada has one of the best NATO flight training schools in the world using the Hawk 115, I would have thought there could be scope to keep a display team using Hawks. The Tutor isn't an operational aircraft, and certainly isn’t selling Canada’s airborne defence products to foreign air forces, so why continue to use it. In fact I’ve just realised, the one thing the Tutor is promoting very well, is that the DND has a great bunch of AMEs who manage to keep these old relics airborne - good work guys!
I disagree that there is no benefit to the Snowbirds. While it is true the military doesn't recruit many pilots nowadays, our manning requirements have rarely been stronger. Don't forget we have been more involved in actual combat and large scale deployments since the cold war ended than the previous 30 years. Afghanistan is taking its toll, and rarely has the military needed public support as much as they do now. To many people the Snowbirds are the only military they will actually see beyond the television, and the team does a wonderful job of acting as liaison and ambassadors between the military and the country they protect. I think their presence is more relevant now than ever.
Well halleluia. Finally we get repreeve from those elitist people. I have dealt with them first hand and that title fits exactly. Watching the snowturds is kind of like watching 80 year old people make love. First views are mostly out of curiousity, and then there's not much to look at. Go strut somewhere else.
monkeyspankmasterflex wrote:Nowadays the ROI on the Snowbirds is negligible. Airshows are for old people, take a look around next time you`re at one. Kids the would rather twitter their blogs and play with their wii-wii`s. Airplanes are so 1985.
I agree, the ROI is limited here compared to the USA or UK, who have larger air forces to recruit for and bigger defence industries to promote. However, the fact that Canada has one of the best NATO flight training schools in the world using the Hawk 115, I would have thought there could be scope to keep a display team using Hawks. The Tutor isn't an operational aircraft, and certainly isn’t selling Canada’s airborne defence products to foreign air forces, so why continue to use it. In fact I’ve just realised, the one thing the Tutor is promoting very well, is that the DND has a great bunch of AMEs who manage to keep these old relics airborne - good work guys!
DND owns the Tutors...they do not own the Hawks, or the Harvard IIs for that matter, they just operate them. I don't think it is possible to just "grab" a few Hawks for a dedicated demo team.
While I agree that the Snowbirds should not be a top priority for the government, neither are many other expensive waste of taxpayers money, and so many fat expense accounts for senior bureaucrats, who travel abroad as they wish and dine at Hy's Steakhouse and the likes for working lunches on the taxpayers bill. DFAIT (Foreign Affairs) spends more in renting and renovating empty luxury appartments, suites and homes worldwide than the Snowbirds cost in a year. In an equal playing field and responsible spending, I would say scrap the Snowbirds. But since Ottawa continues to distribute cash like dancing rows of PEZ dispensers to random programs, screw it then - keep the Snowbirds flying, they are great.
If I had my way the Snow Birds would be given the best airplanes for performing air shows and have their budget increased to perform more shows.
Canada is getting further and further into a third world country mentality because of inept management without gutting our military to really drive the last nail into the coffin by cutting back on the air display team.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Puddle Jumper wrote: The Tutor isn't an operational aircraft, and certainly isn’t selling Canada’s airborne defence products to foreign air forces, so why continue to use it.
It's not in the interest of DND/CF to sell anything - Bombardier makes the money if they sell training, not us.
Puddle Jumper wrote: The Tutor isn't an operational aircraft, and certainly isn’t selling Canada’s airborne defence products to foreign air forces, so why continue to use it.
It's not in the interest of DND/CF to sell anything - Bombardier makes the money if they sell training, not us.
So what benefit are the Snowbirds to the DND and the taxpayer then? Surely you don't think the Snowbirds have that much impact on recruitment do you!
OK, let's ask some of our younger viewers what they think of it all. With the potential of driving one of the following as a career in the forces, which one is most likely to make you sign on the dotted line?
And you find the Snowbirds boring? How can a slower, piston aircraft compare to the speed and noise of a jet - even a Tutor?
I can't believe someone would actually think a jet gives a better show than an piston airplane doing tail slides and all that goes with a truly good aerobatic demonstration -- but to each his own --
Comparing a solo piston engine act to a 9 ship jet formation act is comparing apples to oranges...
I love the tutor. If the CF asked me to fly a tutor for them today at my age I'd still be yelling yes.
---------- ADS -----------
Having a standard that pilots lose their licence after making a mistake despite doing no harm to aircraft or passengers means soon you needn't worry about a pilot surplus or pilots offering to fly for free. Where do you get your experience from?
Let's be fair and portray both aircraft in a positive light eh?
---------- ADS -----------
Having a standard that pilots lose their licence after making a mistake despite doing no harm to aircraft or passengers means soon you needn't worry about a pilot surplus or pilots offering to fly for free. Where do you get your experience from?