Two profiles for this bird, because whoever made the second one put the real c/n vs. the FAA's recording of the old Army serial number. Second profile should be deleted and photos moved to first profile, even though the c/n isn't correct.

Glenn

Yes,...But

The first profile has Helicopter Transport Svc Inc as oem/mfg!

I equate the CH-54 or S-64 with Sikorsky (the OEM) not with a third party corporation or after-market MOD company.

Maybe it's just me :!:

These started out as Sikorsky, BUT, the rights for these birds was bought out, and the civil versions for fire-fighting are completely rebuilt frames. I thought we were going to have the official FAA registry

There are a lot of the ex-military machines that when in warbird status are sometimes registered with their military c/n. If we have dupe profiles for every aircraft that someone makes a new one because the FAA data base doesn't have the c/n instead of the military serial or BuNo, we'll end up with a whole lot of extra profiles.

I guess my thinking was that if another profile doesn't serve a purpose except being sentimental about manufacturers (and I'm that way too - I'd go with Sikorsky if I was telling anyone who built it!) perhaps it shouldn't be added to the mix. With this particular aircraft it splits the photos.

I'm sort of "Monkish" about things being tidy :

Glenn

Glenn, seeing how one of the birds was mine and I agree with your thinking, the ships were moved

Walt

I agree with getting this stuff as right as possible, but...the FAA data drives the information and it is considered "official" whether is is technically correct or not...so I guess we should stick with it.

The Skycranes will always be Sikorsky built in my mind. (I was rather surprised to see HTS had their name on these as manufacturer, I thought Erickson owned the type certificate? )

Funny...I just posted these pic today and this discussion has happened quickly.

It would seem this site is gather more avid followers all the time...COOL!

When I first started posting pics here Compton had "only" 8000 or so photos listed.

I agree, Sikorsky made the machines, but they sell the rights to alter and change the machines for what is necessary to fill the companies requirements. Sikorsky probably sold the right to rename and number the machines. Then I believe that company is required to get it re-certified to fly for what they have transitioned it to, and it becomes their machine.

Zane,

I watch the RSS feeds during the day whenever I get on the computer. I have shots of several CH-64s taken at BDL when I was visiting the New England Air Museum - I just went across the field and asked if I could shoot them. When posting them I discovered they all civil registries now. SO I've been enjoying seeing postings in their civil colors over the years, and yours were the latest addition to one that hadn't any yet.

As for Erickson vs HTS, with the way corporations file their names, etc, I just thought perhaps they were one and the same. Perhaps HTS also did some mods, while Erickson now has the type rights to all the parts, rebuilds, etc?

Glenn

Zane,

I watch the RSS feeds during the day whenever I get on the computer. I have shots of several CH-64s taken at BDL when I was visiting the New England Air Museum - I just went across the field and asked if I could shoot them. When posting them I discovered they all civil registries now. SO I've been enjoying seeing postings in their civil colors over the years, and yours were the latest addition to one that hadn't any yet.

As for Erickson vs HTS, with the way corporations file their names, etc, I just thought perhaps they were one and the same. Perhaps HTS also did some mods, while Erickson now has the type rights to all the parts, rebuilds, etc?

Glenn