Hughes VHLH very-heavy-lift helicopter

[Grey Havoc]

Dear Triton here is a picture with a caption in French that I've found of a Lockheed HLH "project" using (I think) Lockheed's rigid-rotor. I couldn't find a topic on Lockheed HLH "projects" elsewhere, so I've put it here......

The picture comes from the 15th December 1966 issue of Aviation Magazine International......

Terry (Caravellarella)

Could carry 10 tonnes over 1600 klicks, or alternatively 150 passengers. Could also retrieve an Apollo type capsule (if I understood the caption correctly?).

 

[hesham]

Hi,


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/864891.pdf


[Pictures identified as Sikorsky designs removed]

 

[hesham]

Hi,


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017584_1981017548.pdf

 

[hesham]

Also that Hughes VHLH was called Model HH-80.

 

[Stargazer]

Also that Hughes VHLH was called Model HH-80.

When you assert something like this, hesham, please give the source. You have misinterpreted documents before (which is normal, since English is not your native language) and so we need to see exactly what the designation corresponds to in the source document.

 

[hesham]

You are right Stargazer;


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a099192.pdf

 

[Stargazer]

You are right Stargazer;
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a099192.pdf

??? In the case of the "464" and "485" designations, at least the numbers appear on the blueprints, but here??

Just because the report is called "HH-80-466", you have infered that the VHLH was the "Model HH-80"?? Why not the "Model 466"? Or "80-466"?

This is ridiculous, hesham. It simply says that this is Hughes Helicopters' 466th report for the year 1980.

 

[hesham]

Re: Hughes HLH heavy-lift helicopter

Hi,


here is anther Hughes HLH (Heavy-Lift Helicopter);


The dimensions of each main rotor 92" (28.04m0; length of fuselage 89'3" (27.2m); length overall, rotors turning 162'3' (49.45m); height (to top of rear hub) 38'7.5" (11.77m). the weight empty is about 65,000Ib (29,484 kg); maximum weight 148,000Ib (167,129 kg). The next flying crane design was the Hughes HLH (Heavy Lift Helicopter) which uses unique tip drive system. The tip drive system has many advantages in large helicopters because it eliminates heavy gear box which weight more than the combined engine weight. Hughes tip driven system was developed under Navy contract. The standard blade chord is 10' (3m) and the radar a system 185' (56.4m). Advanced control system will limit the circulation frequency higher than blade rotation frequency such as helicopter could lift 54 tons ABRAMS. The new system is powered by 4 gas turbines with 20,000 hp power.


http://www.airborn12.com/extras/images/helicopter/heavy%20helo.htm

 

[hesham]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a099192.pdf

Also;

 

[mil]

HUGHES HEAVY LIFTER In To · ember, Hughes Tool Compan) announced plans to develop a hea \-lift h elicopter to have a beta 3 to 5 tim es that of 1968's (b) est lifting h elicopter. The design will closely monitor employ the "hot cycle" cone pt.

 

[jsport]

magnificent find Mil, thank you for posting.

 

[hesham]

Wow,great find my dear Mil.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/search?QueryTerm=jet-propelled+helicopter&DocType=All&sort=

 

[asiscan]

You are right Stargazer;
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a099192.pdf

??? In the case of the "464" and "485" designations, at least the numbers appear on the blueprints, but here??

Just because the report is called "HH-80-466", you have infered that the VHLH was the "Model HH-80"?? Why not the "Model 466"? Or "80-466"?

This is ridiculous, hesham. It simply says that this is Hughes Helicopters' 466th report for the year 1980.

Not come across the 485 only as a brief mention in a related table for the Hughes Composite Research Aircraft proposal of 1965 for U.S. Army in one document. I'm still hesitant to call the Hughes CRA submission the 485...

 

[hesham]

From Army Aviation 1971/4.

 

[Scott Kenny]

At first sight this implies that a multi-rotor multi-gearbox skycrane would be lighter than a single-rotor one.
On one hand you have slightly increased weights because you are duplicating all of the rotor systems, which albeit smaller, are still going to weigh more than a single larger one as a sum. On the other hand smaller gearboxes handling the same total horsepower are likely to weigh less (?).
The example of the Mi-26 tells us that the breakeven point is somewhere above that helicopter's lift capacity.

You still need cross-power drives and that ups the complexity and weight of the gearboxes.

Witness how much trouble Ospreys have had with their cross shafts and clutches.

 

[Deleted member 4286]

You still need cross-power drives and that ups the complexity and weight of the gearboxes.

Witness how much trouble Ospreys have had with their cross shafts and clutches.