Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
The widows have a multitude of reasons. First they are usually used to keep the troops in back from getting sick. Try a roller coaster with a blind fold to see the less than wonderous effects of not being able to visually equate the outside world with the inner ear. As those at the back of the bus are farther away from the center of gravity they tend to get more of the moment (pun intended yes). They also serve as emergency exits if the primary door is somehow jammed in a less than good landing (what we used to call a crash ... landing). Then there is the fact that like car windows in the back of the car the aircrew do used them to look outside the aircraft now and again. Especially on those cold nights when sticking your head out into the -20 degree hurricane is less than desireable. Sometimes the pilots (preferably the one not on the controls) will look over his/her shoulder to see if chalk 2 is still back there in formation.I would expect that if they really needed to get rid of the windows it could be done, but I would not want to be the one sitting in back of the no window bus going into combat on a dark night.As to the Stealthhawk stuff. I am still not convinced that retractable gear is worth the extra weight, and MH-60 are already heavy with all of the extra "special" kit; so adding even more complex gear seems a bit much. Besides I think you can make the wheels stealthy without retracting them if you have to (spats anyone?) for the mission. I also think that if you are going to go to all of the trouble to reduce the radar signature you are going to have to have some sort of cover over the dynamic components going to the rotor hub. Either an extension of the hydraulics access/cover or a separate element. Recall that most of Sikorsky's recent work has covers over those components if RCS is important.
The widows have a multitude of reasons. First they are usually used to keep the troops in back from getting sick. Try a roller coaster with a blind fold to see the less than wonderous effects of not being able to visually equate the outside world with the inner ear. As those at the back of the bus are farther away from the center of gravity they tend to get more of the moment (pun intended yes). They also serve as emergency exits if the primary door is somehow jammed in a less than good landing (what we used to call a crash ... landing). Then there is the fact that like car windows in the back of the car the aircrew do used them to look outside the aircraft now and again. Especially on those cold nights when sticking your head out into the -20 degree hurricane is less than desireable. Sometimes the pilots (preferably the one not on the controls) will look over his/her shoulder to see if chalk 2 is still back there in formation.
I would expect that if they really needed to get rid of the windows it could be done, but I would not want to be the one sitting in back of the no window bus going into combat on a dark night.
As to the Stealthhawk stuff. I am still not convinced that retractable gear is worth the extra weight, and MH-60 are already heavy with all of the extra "special" kit; so adding even more complex gear seems a bit much. Besides I think you can make the wheels stealthy without retracting them if you have to (spats anyone?) for the mission. I also think that if you are going to go to all of the trouble to reduce the radar signature you are going to have to have some sort of cover over the dynamic components going to the rotor hub. Either an extension of the hydraulics access/cover or a separate element. Recall that most of Sikorsky's recent work has covers over those components if RCS is important.
