From: Dick (rertman@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 17:47:23 PDT
Joe, Lar, etc:
If I recall correctly, the FAA (F*** All Aviators) also said the UH-1
couldn't be flown as a civ aircraft because of a bearing in the tail
rotor. One could replace the bearing with an FAA approved one.
I don't recall which supplier provided the bearing, but the "civilian"
version was the same as the MIL unit, right down to the part number,
but minus the NSN and not packed per MIL spec packing.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Garrett" <j.garrett@verizon.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: 15 April, 2005 16:38
Subject: Re: [MV] Helicopter Sealed Bid at Surplus Property
> Larry,
>
> I don't dispute what you say here, as you are probably correct. The
> military versions were probably never FAA approved.
>
> The Cayuse and the Kiowa were military versions of civilian aircraft,
> though. The Kiowa is a Bell Jetranger and the Cayuse is an MD-500,
> formerly the Hughes model 369.
>
> Joe Garrett> Subject: [MV] Helicopter Sealed Bid at Surplus Property
> State of South Carolina has this up for sealed bids. This type OH-6A was
> used during the Vietnam war. Wayne
> =====================================
>
> Sorry to say, Wayne, that OH-6 can't fly under a civil license. Helo
> manufacturers got smart after the Sikorskis and Bell's were retired
> (CH-34's, OH-13's etc.)...they could be licensed civil.
>
> The Bell OH-58's, Hughes OH-6's and Bell UH-1's don't exist at the FAA and
> cannot be licensed...that way the manufacturers got them out of the civil
> market and don't have to compete against their old warbirds being in the
> market.
>
> They can only fly under "experimental" or "restricted"...very sad. I
> guess
> that's kinda what AmerGeneral tried to do with the HMMWV, huh?
>
> Lar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:42:54 PDT