Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
22 January 2006
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
1,975
Dear topic starters,

In my opinion, we should take one minute to choose the most precisse and informative tittle and descriptions for every new topic.
This would be a benefit for all the comunity here because it would be easier to find particular information in the forum.Organized info it is also more pleasant to read.
And please, try to avoid dispersion and off topic.

Thanks :)
 
Re: Posting Guidelines - PLEASE READ!


I agree! It's frustrating to see new postings to a subject of interest, only to find it's totally irrelevant!


pometablava said:
I think Overscan should consider to rename this topic ;)

Dear topic starters,

In my opinion, we should take one minute to choose the most precisse and informative tittle and descriptions for every new topic.
This would be a benefit for all the comunity here because it would be easier to find particular information in the forum.Organized info it is also more pleasant to read.
And please, try to avoid dispersion and off topic.

Thanks :)
 
Hi,

The Sikorsky CH-53E as a high speed flying crane helicopter.
 

Attachments

  • ch53espeedcraneoverthecloudstn.jpg
    ch53espeedcraneoverthecloudstn.jpg
    4.2 KB · Views: 1,151
In Aviation Week 1967 17-22, there was a concept, just called "Heavy-Lift
Logistic System", that, judging the artist's impression, could have been based
on the CH-53, although it bears not much resemblance to the other picture
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky-crane.JPG
    Sikorsky-crane.JPG
    41.9 KB · Views: 1,020
I always thought that CH-53E is Super Stallion...
 
Sentinel Chicken said:
hesham said:
Hi,

The Sikorsky CH-53E as a high speed crane helicopter.
Is that a real proposal or someone's kitbash?

It is a kitbash for a heavy lift. It's not going to lift a lot with all that wing surface in the downwash. The 'high speed' is rather silly too since the flat plate drag on the external cargo will eat up the aircrafts power margin at anything above 120 knots... if that.
 
This picture comes from an advert by Sikorsky in Aviation Week 1970, showing
a design for a 23t heavy lift helicopter.
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky-23t-HLH.JPG
    Sikorsky-23t-HLH.JPG
    52 KB · Views: 662
Hi,

on archive film about Sikorsky and his helicopter aircraft and projects,
I saw a very large flying crane helicopter project developed from S-64,
with four big legs,and it look like the Boeing HLH of 1970,does anyone
know it ?.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing HLH.jpg
    Boeing HLH.jpg
    15.3 KB · Views: 285
Concept model of the Sikorsky DS-160 (DS- for Design Study) early crane helicopter project. Horizontal tail rotor is noteworthy. Factory 3-view drawing came with the model (copies can be obtained from another source -- just search DS-160 on SPF).
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky DS-160.jpg
    Sikorsky DS-160.jpg
    57.2 KB · Views: 506
Another picture of the DS-160 model, with wheel undercarriage and passenger pod attached. This feature that would be offered on the later Skycrane.
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky-DS-160 03.jpg
    Sikorsky-DS-160 03.jpg
    270.7 KB · Views: 493
Were there any planned replacements/successors for this aircraft?

I know that in terms of role they were replaced by CH53's and Chinooks, but I was wondering more in terms of concept; an aircraft with minimal airframe intended to carry underslung loads.

I always felt that the concept of the aircraft being able to carry fitted out modules; such as operating theatres or command facilities was a good one (Maybe I was to much of a childhood fan on the Eagle Transporters in Space 1999).

I wondered if the concept was such a "one hit wonder" because it was limited to transporting underslung loads?

Regards.
 
There was a CH-54B that was significantly larger than the CH-54A. Sikorsky pitched it to the Army, which was not interested. Then the Army asked for an upgrade to the 54A which was designated the 54B. Put another way, the 54B that was actually built was not the same as the original 54B that was proposed.

There were a few similar concepts, but they never got very far. Although the concept of saving weight by just building the frame and not a heavy cabin seemed logical, in actual military operations, there was a lot greater need for a cabin that could also transport troops. The CH-54 was not as versatile as the Army wanted.
 
an aircraft with minimal airframe intended to carry underslung loads

Boeing's HLH (XCH-62A) was exactly that, though it was a huge helicopter. Unfortunately the program was canceled before the prototype was complete.

Oh, by the way... could a moderator change the title for "Tahre" to "Tarhe"? It will help further searches in the search engine. Thanks!
 
Thanks for the info.

Any specs on the original CH54B?

Regards.
 
Why not add the dash between CH & 54 to correct the designation while you're at it?


Stargazer2006 said:
an aircraft with minimal airframe intended to carry underslung loads

Boeing's HLH (XCH-62A) was exactly that, though it was a huge helicopter. Unfortunately the program was canceled before the prototype was complete.

Oh, by the way... could a moderator change the title for "Tahre" to "Tarhe"? It will help further searches in the search engine. Thanks!
 
JohnR said:
Thanks for the info.

Any specs on the original CH54B?

Regards.

Yeah, I'll post them. Also have some artwork. It looks like a 54A, only somewhat longer. I think I have a side by side comparison.
 
frank said:
Why not add the dash between CH & 54 to correct the designation while you're at it?

Sure. If I had my way, I'd go correcting all these annoying typos in the titles, believe you me!
 
Here are two images, along with the statistics. Sorry these are not better. I have the artist image of the CH-54B lifting the tank as a color print, but can't scan it because it's framed.
 

Attachments

  • CH-54B2.JPG
    CH-54B2.JPG
    241.9 KB · Views: 447
  • CH-54B.jpg
    CH-54B.jpg
    196.4 KB · Views: 386
Is it just me, or does that CH-54B seem to bear a distinct resemblance to the H-53? As I remember, the CH-54 is the S-64 while the H-53 (the twin-engined verions, anyway) is the S-65. I could see some design data crossover; it also give an idea about how to go modelling a Ch-54B.
 
Not sure, as no designation is given, but this picture from Aviation week 17/67
could show the C-54B, too, I think.
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky-concepts.jpg
    Sikorsky-concepts.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 929
I think the S-64 and S-65 were designed at about the same time and are indeed quite similar in a number of ways.
Also, I recall the original S-65 design was not produced. What we know as the H-53 series is the S-65A and S-65C.
 
Blackstar,

Once again thanks for the info. and the images.

What was the intended powerplant?

Stargazer2006,

With regard to the S-64 and 65, I had wondered if there were any proposals for this concept based on the powerplant and rotor arrangements of what became the CH-53. (Aren't you proud I used dashes)

Regards.
 
Powerplant would have been either three GE T-64-16 engines or three Lycoming T-55-11 engines.
 
The attached photo shows a basic model of Igor Sikorsky's sesqui-rotor layout, which would evolve into the DS-160 crane helicopter study. This model is dated 1948, which suggests the DS-160 was designed that same year at the earliest, not in 1945 as described elsewhere.
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky Sesqui-Rotor 1948.jpg
    Sikorsky Sesqui-Rotor 1948.jpg
    76.3 KB · Views: 820
In Paul Beaver's Military Helicopters handbook written in the 1980s, when comes to the then Hughes TH-55 Osage, theres a brief mention that it was offered to the German Army Aviation as a trainer, equipped with a Porsche engine.

Also in the Vietnam Helicopter Handbook by Barry Gregory, when the section on the CH-54 Tarhe, it said that one was demo'd by Sikorsky to the Bundeswehr.

Does anyone have any brochures or pamphlets detailing of the above or even conceptual pics of the helos in German markings at all?

Cheers
 
uk 75,

Many thanks for that now any more info on the proposed Hughes TH-55 Osage for the training requirement for the Heersflieger?

Cheers
 
Raven

I have checked a range of reference sources from the early 60s and can find no useful
info on the Hughes for Germany. It does seem to have been offered to a range of countries.

Germany in fact used the Alouette in this role, and also had some pilot training done in the US,
perhaps including with the US Army on Hughes.

UK 75
 
I can attest to the German pilot training on the TH-55 in 1980. We had an entire West German unit at Fort Rucker when I went through flight school and they were flying TH-55s just like the rest of us WOCs.
 
Loren said:
I can attest to the German pilot training on the TH-55 in 1980. We had an entire West German unit at Fort Rucker when I went through flight school and they were flying TH-55s just like the rest of us WOCs.

Hmmm... interesting. Did the German pilots call them "Oh-Sar-Jee", "Oss-Age" or "Aw-Zag-Er"? ;D
 
Actually they called them the same thing as the American pilots - Gnats. Though some of the time the Germans and the WOCs mainly referred to them as just 55s but not Osage. Nobody in the US Army at that time called them Osage.

Kind of like the official name of the UN-1 was Iroquois but nobody ever used it.
 
Re: Proposed Sikorsky CH-54 Tarhe and Hughes TH-55 for Bundeswehr-Heeresflieger

Dear all,

Here's the little bit that mentioned the proposal for the Heeresflieger for the TH-55/TH-300C

Apologies for the poor quality of scan as I had to use my iphone camera to take a copy as opposed to destroying the book and bending the pages back!

th55_fur_Heersfilieger.jpg


Cheers
 
Hi,


Model of proposed "Los Angeles Airways" helicopter airbus with passenger carrying pod is inspected by Ann Orbeck. The city may get federal funds for a demonstration project to test the skybus between downtown and airport. Los Angeles Times Photo - April 4, 1965.

http://viewlinerltd.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/los-angeles-airways.html
 

Attachments

  • S-64.jpg
    S-64.jpg
    108.2 KB · Views: 288

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom