Boeing-Vertol Model 179 YUH-61A UTTAS / Model 237 LAMPS contender

[Abraham Gubler]

Some information on the Boeing Vertol Model 237 (YUH-61A) offer for the Utility Tactical Transport Aircraft System (UTTAS) project (lost to the Sikorsky Black hawk). A few of their period adverts.

 

[flateric]

I have an old promotional brochure that damn don't fit the scaner...

 

[AeroFranz]

FYI there is an article complete with cutaways (both Army and Navy versions IIRC) on the Flight Archives.

 

[alanqua]

Can you provide a link please?

 

[flateric]

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20-%201601.html and following pages

 

[alanqua]

Thank you!
Pardon me, but it does not talk about the Navy version of the YUH-61 (LAMPS). I've been searchin for this one in Flight Archives but never found something.

Regards
Alain

 

[AeroFranz]

That's my bad. :-[
I did not read the article but just saved it for future reading because I found it while looking for something else, and I thought i saw two cutaways differing only in landing gear arrangement (hence army/navy version). i see now the second cutaway is the S-60.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Some Boeing YUH-61 pics via sobchak.wordpress.com (note: site is a blog, you may find off-topic or objectionable material...)

 

[Skybolt]

There was a fine document on DTIC a couple of years ago on YUH-61. Disappeared, and who knows were it is on my disks...

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Thank you!
Pardon me, (deleted) but it does not talk about the Navy version of the YUH-61 (LAMPS). I've been searchin for this one in Flight Archives but never found something.

Regards
Alain

 

[SteveO]

Why is the main rotor shaft a lot longer in the naval variant ???

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the Boeing Vertol LAMPS version was called BV.237.

 

[JohnR]

From what I recall there wasn't much in terms of performance between the Boeing and Sikorsky UTTAS, I remember the story of the Boeing crashing into a stand of Oaks and being repaired. And personaly I consider that the Boeing design was better aesthetically.

Why was the Blackhawk eventually selected?

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Why is the main rotor shaft a lot longer in the naval variant ???

To make a long story short, both the Sikorsky and Boeing candidates had problems due to the very short rotor shaft dictated by the requirement for air transportability. Sikorsky solved the problem by using a readily removable section of rotor shaft to reduce the overall height of the helicopter. When Boeing engineers modified their design for the Navy program, they lengthened the main rotor shaft.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

To make a long story short, both the Sikorsky and Boeing candidates had problems due to the very short rotor shaft dictated by the requirement for air transportability. Sikorsky solved the problem by using a readily removable section of rotor shaft to reduce the overall height of the helicopter. When Boeing engineers modified their design for the Navy program, they lengthened the main rotor shaft.

That's an interesting design problem. Having seen a few helos loaded into An-124s, C-17s it is the rotor hub that is always the tight fit. I would have thought approaching the problem laterally would have been the way and using crouching undercarriage. Leave the rotor hub be and lower the height by lowering the ground clearance.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

From what I recall there wasn't much in terms of performance between the Boeing and Sikorsky UTTAS, I remember the story of the Boeing crashing into a stand of Oaks and being repaired. And personaly I consider that the Boeing design was better aesthetically.

Why was the Blackhawk eventually selected?

At the risk of oversimplifying, and based on correspondence with an Army official involved in the selection, the prototypes of both helicopters were found to have significant problems during the fly off for which both companies proposed credible solutions. However, the Boeing UTTAS design incorporated an advanced Bölkow-type hingeless rotor that was considered higher risk by the Army evaluators, particularly from a development schedule standpoint. The Sikorsky UTTAS proposal had a more conventional rotor of a larger diameter and was therefore considered to be more likely to meet the challenging hover requirement and also have better high-speed maneuverability. Boeing management disagreed with the risk assessment, of course, and believed that if they had just had a little more time to develop and demonstrate fixes to the excessive YUH-61 vibration problem, the decision would have gone the other way. That they ran out of time might have been due to the fact that they refused until the last minute to raise the rotor higher above the fuselage as shown in their Navy LAMPS proposal.

 

[JohnR]

Interesting and very concise, you've answered my question nicely.

Thanks.

 

[alanqua]

Hi,

To illustrate the debate, here are some drawings I made and publish in "Le Fana de l'Aviation" quite some time ago.
- General 3 view plan of the YUH-61
- One view of the LAMPS

Regards
Alain

 

[Triton]

Additional Boeing-Vertol YUH-61 UTTAS images.

 

[alanqua]

Nice!
I did not have the one with the air intake in the airflow test facility (first of your photo). Do you have other pictures like that?
Regards
ALain

 

[hesham]

Hi,

here is the Boeing-Vertol BV.237 LAMPS III mock-up.

 

[Creative]

Fascinating, thanks for sharing that. Did it compete with Kaman?

 

[Howedar]

It lost the competition to Sikorsky's S-70 (SH-60, in this particular case) for LAMPS-III (and, as I recall, the Army competition as well).

 

[Pioneer]

Hey Hesham
I found this on one of my discs. I am sorry but I have no source!


Regards
Pioneer

 

[AeroFranz]

I think there is already another thread on YUH-61...

 

[Stargazer]

LAMPS III was the Boeing Vertol BV-237, while UTTAS was the BV-179. Although they had much in common, they can be considered as two separate designs and I believe therefore that each deserves a thread of its own!

 

[Triton]

Model of Boeing YUH-61 UTTAS found on eBay. Manufacturer of model is unknown.

URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/TOPPING-LIKE-BOEING-YUH-61-ULTRA-RARE-MODEL-1970S-/170531827545?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0

Description:

UP FOR BID WITH "NO RESERVE" IS A RARE DESK MODEL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ARMY HELICOPTER KNOWN AS THE YUH-61( AKA MODEL 179) CONCEIVED BY BOEING IN THE MID 1970'S WHEN COMPETING FOR A "UTTAS" PROGRAM IN COMPETITION WITH SIKORSKY'S S-60 (WHO WON). THIS DESK MODEL WAS MADE FOR BOEING POSSIBLY BY TOPPING OR ROLEN AND DISTRIBUTED TO ARMY GENERALS AT THE PENTAGON.

THE MODEL IS IN PRISTINE CONDITION WITH NO MISSING PARTS THAT I CAN TELL NOR ANY CRACKS OR GLUED AREAS ANYWHERE. IT'S AN AWESOME MODEL TO LOOK AT, AND OWN IN ONE'S COLLECTION AS ONLY THREE EXPERIMENTAL ONES WERE EVER MADE AND NEVER WENT INTO PRODUCTION. THIS HELICOPTER HAD 4 BLADES NOT 2.

THE MODEL IS LIKE NEW AND IS IN EXCELLENT CONDITION AND COMES WITH 2(DOUBLE) ROTOR BLADES, A TAIL ROTOR AND A BLACK PLASTIC STAND. THE STAND HAS NO MARKINGS WHATSOEVER. NOT SURE IF THE MODEL IS MADE OF PLASTIC OR FIBERGLASS, EITHER WAY IT'S AN OUTSTANDING MODEL TO OWN AND ADD TO ANY HELICOPTER COLLECTION. THIS ONE WAS PURCHASED ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO FROM A GOOD FRIEND PILOT (DECEASED)WHO CAPTAINED A GOLDEN DC9 OWNED BY THE LATE MALCOLM FORBES.

THE MODEL IS APPROXIMATELY 13 INCHES LONG. I BELIEVE THE SCALE MAY BE 1:48. I HAVE NOT SEEN ANOTHER ONE LIKE IT IN MY 35 YEARS OF COLLECTING HELIS EXCEPTING ONE (1) EXAMPLE AT THE HELICOPTER MUSEUM IN VIRGINIA.

 

[Triton]

Model of Boeing YUH-61 UTTAS found on eBay. Manufacturer of model is unknown.

 

[flateric]

11/18/75 YUH-61A UTTAS 01 mishap report and photos
http://ww.chinook-helicopter.com/news/Boeing/CH-47C_Slings_UTTAS_001_November_1975.pdf

 

[flateric]

some graphics from http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA063712
all other YUH-61A related docs at DTIC are unaccessible

 

[Triton]

Boeing Vertol YUH-61A UTTAS model found on eBay.

URL:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BOEING-VERTOL-YUH-61A-/200615926241?pt=UK_ToysGames_ModelKits_ModelKits_JN&hash=item2eb5a419e1

 

[Stingray]

Some great pictures regarding the YUH-61 via Ray and the USAAM archives:


http://stingraysrotorforum.activeboard.com/t26318430/boeing/?page=4

 

[Stingray]

More:

 

[Triton]

Boeing Vertol YUH-61A press photo circa 1973.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1973-Boeing-Vertol-Division-Press-Photo-/200794612810?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item2ec04aa44a

 

[Triton]

Boeing Vertol Model 179 commercial variant.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1973-Boeing-Vertol-Division-Model-179-helicopter-Press-Photo-/190704754255?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item2c66e39e4f

 

[Stargazer]

A general arrangement of the 19-passenger, twin-turbine Boeing Vertol Model 179 helicopter, originating from the company:

 

[Stargazer]

Configuration changes were considered circa 1980 (from the same document as above):

 

[Triton]

Full-scale mock-up of the Boeing Vertol 237 which is being developed to meet the U.S. Navy's requirement for a Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS) - shipborne anti-submarine helicopter.

Source:
http://crimso.msk.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft21783.htm

 

[Triton]

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Boeing-Vertol-YUH-61-A-UTTAS-Helicopter-1975-print-Ad-advertisement-/360473086955?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53eddecbeb
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Boeing-Vertol-YUH-61-A-UTTAS-Helicopter-Spill-Proof-Seat-1975-Ad-advertisement-/140797924039?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20c835d2c7

 

[Stargazer]

Promotional photo of the Model 237: