Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk

It is only when watching this great footage of the S-67 in flight – especially when in Nap-of the-Earth profile, that I can see the rear tail-fin/landing gear being a potential problem.
It looks as if it would not take much to snag on trees or aerial wires etc….

Great find
Thanks Sferrin

Regards
Pioneer
 
If carrying troops, how did they disembark? The wing seems to occupy most of the space where side doors would be.

Regards
 
Thanks Sferrin, I had not seen that video in a long time. That was the first helicopter I wanted to fly. Given the success of the Mi-24 around the world I can only wonder at how well the S-67 would have done. As to the troops, like the Mi-24 there is a troop door near the windows in back, on the starboard side I believe. Sikorsky never really promoted the point as the US Army at that point was very much focused on the anti-tank mission for helicopters.

I have heard that the Israeli's were considering the aircraft until it crashed and the economics of a start up came to roost. Any one know if that was true?
 
I've felt that a combination of Apache's and Blackhawks would have done well in the European theatre. This helo had some great lines though. What a design.

And you've got to love that 70's soundtrack.
 
An excellent video. Even now. Very clean and attractive looking piece of flying hardware. I guess another one for the "should have been build"
 
An interesting video. But did it have enough room for "six fully equipped troops" ?
It's fuselage seems too thin for that purpose.
Just compare it to the Mi-24.
How was it possible to accomodate them inside? In tandem?
The helicopter looks too thin even for pilots.
 
Does anyone know in detail why the S-67 Blackhawk was judged as "unsatisfactory" by the US Army? It looks damn-near perfect to me! (Although Pioneer's reservations about the ventral tail fin struck me too...)

I'm particularly disappointed that Westland's didn't get a chance to licence-produce it for the AAC and the RM Commandos too, but that's really one for the What If? forum....... ;)
 
Weaver said:
Does anyone know in detail why the S-67 Blackhawk was judged as "unsatisfactory" by the US Army? It looks damn-near perfect to me! (Although Pioneer's reservations about the ventral tail fin struck me too...)

I'm particularly disappointed that Westland's didn't get a chance to licence-produce it for the AAC and the RM Commandos too, but that's really one for the What If? forum....... ;)
Click to expand...

Cheyenne had a ventral fin as well and it didn't seem to bother the army. ???
 
Some of the bigger Cobras do too.


sferrin said:
Weaver said:
Does anyone know in detail why the S-67 Blackhawk was judged as "unsatisfactory" by the US Army? It looks damn-near perfect to me! (Although Pioneer's reservations about the ventral tail fin struck me too...)

I'm particularly disappointed that Westland's didn't get a chance to licence-produce it for the AAC and the RM Commandos too, but that's really one for the What If? forum....... ;)
Click to expand...

Cheyenne had a ventral fin as well and it didn't seem to bother the army. ???
Click to expand...
 
Weaver said:
Does anyone know in detail why the S-67 Blackhawk was judged as "unsatisfactory" by the US Army? It looks damn-near perfect to me! (Although Pioneer's reservations about the ventral tail fin struck me too...)
Click to expand...

First substantive post, so be gentle with me ;)

On DTIC, I found a copy of a 1972 S-67 flight characteristics evaluation (link at end of this post) that lists a bunch of handling issues that needed to be resolved, mostly to do with trim and torque, but also excessive nose-up on deceleration. Whether that would be sufficient to merit disqualification or not, I can't say.

I would suspect that the real issue was that the Army was having a serious rethink of its tactics for attack helicopters in the face of the deployment of ZSU-23-4 and SA-7/-8/-9 in Central Europe. Those systems made the high-speed glide/strafe attacks planned for Cheyenne and Black Hawk very risky indeed. The eventual Advanced Attack Helicopter requirement that led to Apache was based around NOE pop-up tactics instead (and lots of armor and redundancy).

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0771161
 
Wonderful post. While I cannot say for sure that your thoughts on the Army's reasoning is correct, it certainly follows with what I have heard from some of those who were involved in decision making on Army rotorcraft. Because of the mission profile expected the in a Central Europe war the aircraft was not expected to operate over large distances and the hover/NOE profile was the only logical choice for operations of attack helicopters.

I suspect also that with the difficulties the Army had with the AH-56 effort, technically and politically, they were a bit less enthused about another potentially controversial aircraft. That is just a suspicion of mine.
 
I'm sorry for my ignorance, could you please tell me what NOE means?

Thanks in advance :)
 
Anyone know of decent drawings for the S-67?

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • S-67 Blackhawk 1.jpg
    S-67 Blackhawk 1.jpg
    211.7 KB · Views: 1,378
  • S-67 Blackhawk 2.jpg
    S-67 Blackhawk 2.jpg
    140.5 KB · Views: 1,260
  • S-67 Blackhawk 3.jpg
    S-67 Blackhawk 3.jpg
    156.2 KB · Views: 1,223
  • S-67 Blackhawk 4.jpg
    S-67 Blackhawk 4.jpg
    134.4 KB · Views: 1,194
  • S-67 Blackhawk 5.jpg
    S-67 Blackhawk 5.jpg
    166.6 KB · Views: 1,267
  • S-67 Blackhawk Plan.jpg
    S-67 Blackhawk Plan.jpg
    98.3 KB · Views: 1,063
Triton said:
If the Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk had been purchased by the United States Army, what would have been its designation? AH-61?
Click to expand...

No, the YUH-61 and YUH-62 were flying in 1974 and, thus, the numbers were assigned prior to this. If the aircraft had been selected it would have been around this time, and the AAH competition would have never occured. So, the "Blackhawk" would have been the AH-63.
 
I remember AH-3 - being son of the S-3 Seaking... Wasn't Iran interested by the chopper at one time ?
 
The Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk, not be confused with the Sikorsky S-70 that become the US Army's UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, was a prototype helicopter built with R&D funds in 1970. Like the Bell Model 309 King Cobra, the S-67 Blackhawk was an unsolicited response to the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne. The two seat helicopter was designed around the dynamic drive and rotor systems of the Sikorsky S-61, it was designed to serve as an attack helicopter or to transport up to eight troops in combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-67
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-67.php
http://www.helis.com/70s/h_s67.php
 

Attachments

  • 214npeq.jpg
    214npeq.jpg
    130.7 KB · Views: 517
  • AA2022_S-67_real_3.jpg
    AA2022_S-67_real_3.jpg
    72.4 KB · Views: 424
  • s671nu4.jpg
    s671nu4.jpg
    27.5 KB · Views: 513
  • S-67_2.jpg
    S-67_2.jpg
    65.5 KB · Views: 455
  • s67kw7.jpg
    s67kw7.jpg
    41.2 KB · Views: 484
  • sik_s-67-s.gif
    sik_s-67-s.gif
    47.4 KB · Views: 472
(Maybe the S-67 threads should be combined? ??? )
 
sferrin said:
(Maybe the S-67 threads should be combined? ??? )
Click to expand...

With the video you posted of the Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk, sferrin?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3712.0.html
 
With the rest of the S-67 threads. There are four or five of them. That way there aren't two or three copies of every picture and so forth.
 
Triton said:
The Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk, not be confused with the Sikorsky S-70 that become the US Army's UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, was a prototype helicopter built with R&D funds in 1970. Like the Bell Model 309 King Cobra, the S-67 Blackhawk was an unsolicited response to the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne. The two seat helicopter was designed around the dynamic drive and rotor systems of the Sikorsky S-61, it was designed to serve as an attack helicopter or to transport up to eight troops in combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-67
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-67.php
http://www.helis.com/70s/h_s67.php
Click to expand...

I love these pics... I hadn't seen them before.

Would have helped with my book it I had known of them
 
In one of those pictures, there's a head-on view of one of the S-67's. I noticed some things sticking out of the wing; flaps, airbrakes maybe?
 
The outer ones must definitely be airbrakes, since they have symmetrical upper/lower deflections. actually they look identical to the airbrakes on an A-6 Intruder.
 
AeroFranz said:
The outer ones must definitely be airbrakes, since they have symmetrical upper/lower deflections. actually they look identical to the airbrakes on an A-6 Intruder.
Click to expand...

They are definitely airbrakes (or "divebrakes"). They performed the function that on the AH-56 was handled by the variable pitch propeller. They allowed rapid deceleration without lifting the nose and also permitted the aircraft to safely dive bomb. Of course, had the S-67 started looking like it would actually be developed, and if they started talking too loudly about dive bombing, they would incur the same wrath from the Air Force that the Cheyenne did once the project folks there mentioned it could dive bomb.
 
General characteristics

* Crew: 2
* Capacity: 15 troops
* Payload: 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
* Length: 74 ft 2 in (22.6 m)
* Rotor diameter: 62 ft (18.9 m)
* Height: 15 ft (4.57 m)
* Empty weight: 12,525 lb (5,681 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 24,272 lb (11,010 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× T58-GE-5 turboshaft engine, 1,500 shp (1,100 kW) each

Performance

* Never exceed speed: 230 mph (370 km/h in dive with ducted fan)
* Maximum speed: 193 mph (311 km/h)
* Range: 220 mi (354 km)
* Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (5,180 m)


Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk image.
 

Attachments

  • 6[4].jpg
    6[4].jpg
    76.3 KB · Views: 822
Do any more pics or drawings of the cockpit exist? I'm thinking about modelling this one for my portfolio.
 
I love the S-67 design, sort of like an American Hind I suppose. I highly doubt 15 soldiers could have fit inside however, that figure can't be right.

Any photos of the seating layout? And when it came to armor protection, any details?
 
Who can help to find pictures or photos Sikorsky S-67 which have been made during the evropejsko-Asian tour across England, Germany, to Iran in 1974году before flight in Fornboro.
 
I saw a document x-copy on our site
ATTACK HEWICOPTER EVALUATION, BLACKHAWK
S-67 HELICOPTER
George M. Yamakawa, et al
Army Aviation Systems Test Activity
Edwards Air Force Base, California
July 1972
I do not remember where it is located, but quality of copies of photos very bad, can eat this document with good photos Sikorsky S-67.
 
mil said:
Who can help to find pictures or photos Sikorsky S-67 which have been made during the evropejsko-Asian tour across England, Germany, to Iran in 1974году before flight in Fornboro.
Click to expand...

I cannot help, but can offer some negative information. I went through the Sikorsky archives and they do not have a lot of S-67 photos. A few dozen, but mostly pictures of it in flight, and mostly the promotional pictures. I think that is a dead end.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I love the S-67 design, sort of like an American Hind I suppose. I highly doubt 15 soldiers could have fit inside however, that figure can't be right.

Any photos of the seating layout? And when it came to armor protection, any details?
Click to expand...

Belated response, just noticed this post.

The demonstrator was eventually fitted with a soundproofed, air conditioned cabin seating six , although the last two would have to be very good friends. From what I know of the proposed production version, this cabin would be expanded to seat eight combat equipped troops. There would be no access to or from the cockpit. Sikorsky was also talking about a (relatively) high speed troop insertion variant. This would have had a one foot wider cabin and would seat 12. I have seen that 15 number pop up in certain places, but like you I find it hard to believe.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom