is a s70 truly a blackhawk?

I suppose it is the "apples and oranges" thing.  They are both round but different under the skin.  I imagine the S-70's don't have all the armor plating and other military required subsytems and not to mention the avionics package.  Also the Army named the UH-60 as the Black Hawk.  Not the S-70.  So there is my "two cents" guys!  Since there is a "grey" area here I propose we call the S-70's Grey Hawks!  Heh, heh! 

Clear Left!

Mel

dkmacin wrote:

Sikorsky made the S-70. The Military took the basic airframe and, with Sirkorsky's blessing and assistance turned it into the aircraft known as the Blackhawk. The civilian off the shelf helo is an S-70. . .or something like that. Like the Aerospatiale SA 365N Dauphin is not the USCG Dolphin. They look alike, but are not the same. Don

They are simply the same aircraft.  The apples and oranges analagy is going in the right direction but maybe valencia oranges and navel oranges is closer to the truth.  The first Firehawk started out as a CAARNG Blackhawk that was leased/loaned/tranfered? to the CA Dept. of forrestry and then modified.  My understanding is that it still belongs to the Guard.  The biggest difference btw -70 and
-60 would be avionics and un armored pilot's seats, unless the buyer wants armored seats.

Mac

Screaminhelo wrote:

They are simply the same aircraft.  The apples and oranges analagy is going in the right direction but maybe valencia oranges and navel oranges is closer to the truth.  The biggest difference btw -70 and -60 would be avionics and un armored pilot's seats, unless the buyer wants armored seats.

...And Roger.  Exactly what I meant.  I like the Valencia and Navel analogy.