Sikorsky flying crane projects

[RavenOne]

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

 

[uk 75]

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

 

[SlickDriver]

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.

 

[Stargazer]

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

 

[SlickDriver]

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.

 

[RavenOne]

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!

Cheers

 

[Barrington Bond]

Recently purchased photo from an aviation fair

 

[Stargazer]

Wonderful, Barrington Bond! This and the HLH one are really appreciated.


I'm adding a link to Flight International's HLH page in 1970.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1970/1970%20-%200238.html

 

[circle-5]

Same illustration, in color.

 

[hesham]

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

 

[Stargazer]

HLH concepts by Sikorsky.

Source: AERIAL VERY HEAVY LIFT CONCEPTS FOR THE 1990 ARMY VOLUME III - ACADEMIC & INDUSTRIAL PRESENTATIONS (U.S. Army, November 1969)

 

[hesham]

Here is the Sikorsky 20-ton flying crane helicopter,I don't know
if it related to S-60 or not !.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/623531.pdf

 

[Stargazer]

If you look closely at the bottom of the plan, it says "HLH", so it's just Sikorksy's contender in the XCH-62 competition, which we have elsewhere on the forum.

 

[Stargazer]

I reworked the lousy scan to make out the helo's silhouette a little better. Very close to the unbuilt S-64B, except maybe for the longer cabin section.

 

[hesham]

Great work Stargazer,I know it is HLH,but it is different from S-62.

 

[Stargazer]

Great work Stargazer,I know it is HLH,but it is different from S-62.

You mean H-62, right? But that was not Sikorsky, that was Boeing Vertol!

 

[hesham]

No stargazer,


it was from Sikorsky,you are right,I meant S-60.

 

[circle-5]

Different views of the Sikorsky S-64B factory model:

 

[hesham]

Hi,


and that is flying crane helicopter project,was developed from S-65-200.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690031713_1969031713.pdf

 

[Jemiba]

Interesting paper, still showing '60s enthusiasm for helicopter/VTOL transportation !And funny to see,
that the compartment coach was revived for helis, when it just had been buried by the railways (page 165
to 167) !
But actually I can see no real connection of the shown flying ceane to the S-65/CH-53. As is written on page
30, it "was chosen as a model for our system" and you find it mentioned along the S-61 for comparative reasons.
That doesn't mean, that the shown sketches are developments of those types, I think, and that crane heli seems
to be single engined.

 

[hesham]

Interesting paper, still showing '60s enthusiasm for helicopter/VTOL transportation !And funny to see,
that the compartment coach was revived for helis, when it just had been buried by the railways (page 165
to 167) !
But actually I can see no real connection of the shown flying ceane to the S-65/CH-53. As is written on page
30, it "was chosen as a model for our system" and you find it mentioned along the S-61 for comparative reasons.
That doesn't mean, that the shown sketches are developments of those types, I think, and that crane heli seems
to be single engined.

My dear Jemiba,


the MAT (Metropolitan Air Transit System) based on S-65-200 for they study;

For the purposes of further performance studies, the Sikorsky
S-65-200 compound helicopter [3-14] was chosen as a model for our
system. The detailed calculations found in the remainder of this
chapter center around this or similar designs.

 

[Jemiba]

I still think, there's a difference between "using a type as a model" and
designing a derivative. In the first case, you are imagining a (new)type, that has
similar performance, so you know, that your aims are realistic and maybe you can
use similar methods. But nevertheless, you are designing a completely new type.
In the second case, you just modify your base type.

 

[hesham]

May be my dear Jemiba.

 

[Jemiba]

From "Der Flieger". december 1961, an early 3-view of the S-64 and another one of a much larger
type with 4 engines driving an eleven bladed rotor .

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky Heavy Lift Helicopter (HLH), competition won by Boeing-Vertol with the XCH-62.

Source:
http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/HLH%20Heavy%20Lift%20Helicopter.php

Background

In 1970, with the success of the Sikorsky S-64 crane helicopters, the U.S Department of Defense identified a need for a “Heavy Lift Helicopter”, or HLH. This would carry 22.5 tons, about twice the payload of the Sikorsky CH-54B. It would be used by both the Army and the Navy in the 1980s. They solicited proposals from industry for a research and development program leading to eventual production. This included the development of the dynamic components including the rotors and drive system, as well as the flight control and cargo handling systems. The dynamic components would be tested in a ground test bed and in a pre-prototype, flyable aircraft. A three-year development program was envisioned, after which work was to begin on a complete aircraft.

Proposals were submitted in February 1971 from five companies – the Vertol Division of Boeing, the Hughes Tool Corporation, Gyrodyne of America, the Kaman Corporation, and Sikorsky. Sikorsky’s strongest competitor was Vertol which proposed a large tandem rotor crane.

Sikorsky had recently built a heavy-lift hoist test facility at the Stratford plant, the only one like it in the United States. This was thought to be a plus in the competition.

In May 1971 it was announced that Vertol had won the contract. This was a blow to Sikorsky, since they had pioneered the crane helicopter concept and felt that they were the most capable company to move the crane concept to this new larger level. Sikorsky president Wesley A. Kuhrt said in a statement released to the press “Our disappointment is heightened by the fact that Sikorsky is the only company in the western world which, with many millions of company funds invested, has been developing and building heavy-lift helicopters for more than ten years.”

At the same time, David Packard, deputy secretary of defense, announced that the Department of Defense was authorizing a program to meet special Navy and Marine Corps requirements for a shipboard based helicopter with a lift capability greater than that currently available, but less than the shore-base HLH. This was the upgrade of the Sikorsky CH-53D program to the CH-53E with a larger rotor and three engines. Sikorsky had been operating a three-engine test bed for some time, original intended for a growth S-64 Skycrane, but then redirected it to the CH-53. This went on to be the very successful CH-53E production program, which is now advancing to the even larger CH-53K.

The Vertol design, designated the XCH-62A, was initiated in 1971. It experienced development problems with the high-power drive system, and the program was cancelled in 1974.

Configuration Features

The HLH followed the basic configuration of previous Sikorsky crane helicopters, the S-60 and the S-64 – A single rotor/tail rotor design with a minimal fuselage and a cockpit which included an aft-facing pilot’s seat to better control the load being carried. Sikorsky stressed that the design was well within the technology limits of the time. The main rotor diameter was 124 feet. The tail rotor had a diameter of 26 ft. Both rotors used four blades. Three General Electric TF-34-58 engines were used, rated at 7,000 hp each.

The rotor was simplified compared to rotors then in production. It contained 80 fewer major parts. Spherical elastomeric bearings were used in place of the three-hinge designs then in production at Sikorsky. Rotor blades were to be built of composite materials, which would be lighter, stronger, and stiffer than metal blades.

The transmission was to be an extension of a system recently tested which was capable of transmitting 11,300 horsepower, 3,000 more than the CH-53B. The HLH design power was 17,300 hp.

The proposed HLH had pushbutton controls mounted at two stations, one on each side of the pilot. These would replace cyclic and collective sticks.

The aircraft would have a crew of five and a cabin to the rear of the cockpit which could carry 12 combat troops.

Gross Weight: 118,000 lbs.
Empty Weight: 59,000 lbs
Length: 110 ft.
Height: 31 ft.
Rotor Diameter: 124 ft.
No. of Blades: 4
Chord: 4.31 ft.
Tip Speed: 750 ft/sec
Tail Rotor Diameter: 26 ft.
TR No. of Blades: 4
TR Chord: 1.49 ft.
TR Tip Speed: 750 ft/sec
Engines: (3) GE TF-34-58
Engine Power: 7000 hp each
Min Gearbox Power: 17,300 hp

 

[hesham]

From Le FANA 376 magazine,


here is the Sikorsky HLH proposal.

 

[Kiltonge]

Stumbled across a reference to Weser Fluzeugbau's involvement in the S-64 design process. Not just in obtaining a production license.

Weser designers have been in America for a year helping in the
development of the WF-S-64 turbine-powered crane, a cockpit section
of which was exhibited at Paris earlier this year.

The crane is a German military programme, two prototypes having
been ordered, but Weser also look to civil possibilities.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1961/1961%20-%201515.html

And it was still designated WF-S-64 three years later, when under evaluation:

The giant WF-S-64 is active on most days, lifting portable water
purifier plants, rafts of four cars and anything else cumbersome that
comes to hand.

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964%20-%201270.PDF

 

[hesham]

Sikorsky Heavy Lift Helicopter (HLH), competition won by Boeing-Vertol with the XCH-62.

Source:
http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/HLH%20Heavy%20Lift%20Helicopter.php

And that project was called S-73.

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky print advertisement featuring artist's impression of the Sikorsky HLH in the Nov. 30, 1969 issue of Army Aviation.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206085577597943&set=gm.10153138815739784&type=1&theater

 

[hesham]

From Sikorskyarchives;


here is a Sikorsky ABC Skycrane


http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/pdf/news%202010/NEWS%20JULY%202010.pdf

 

[hesham]

Hi,

this Sikorsky drawing which called Model-360,maybe they meant DS-360 ?.

http://www.avkits.net/kit50/siku/Skycrane/Skycrane.html
http://www.avkits.net/kit50/siku/Skycrane/Interavia.html

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is a Sikorsky DS-137 flying crane Project,appeared in two variants,
one was with single main rotor and the second was with two main rotor,
who can collect the pieces.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/651416.pdf

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19671127/27/2/zoom

 

[hesham]

And;

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19680624/45/2/zoom

 

[hesham]

When I was searching for the CH-53 crane (is it or is it not ?), I found another
Sikorsky crane heli concept, with a MTOW of nearly 43 ts and a payload of 21.5ts,
intended for carrying an ICBM. Novelty would have been the 11-blade rotor with
the large lenticular hub fairing and twin tail rotors (from Aviation Week 1968 19-26).
The dynamic system would principally have been the same, as in the S-64 project,
shown in Flugwelt 8/1958.

Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19580602/14/2

 

[hesham]

From Sikorsky Archive.

 

[hesham]

From Sikorsky Archive,the S-64B.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Re: Posting Guidelines - PLEASE READ!

If a post is worth posting, its worth creating a topic which is appropriate for it. These multi-page "Various Dornier Projects" type threads are really annoying. By all means, post related designs in one topic, but if the only link is that they share a manufacturer, that's really not useful.

Consider individual topics per design, or per requirement / design competition.

When posting in general, consider -

what is the source of this information? Wikipedia is not usually a suitable source, nor deviantart or similar sites.
Does this post actually add to the existing knowledge in the topic? Have you checked earlier posts to make sure the image or information hasn't already been posted?
Is the image a photo or an original manufacturer-originated drawing? If it's 'fan art' it isn't appropriate here.

Repeated breach of these guidelines will result in post moderation, and posts which do not meet the guidelines will be deleted.

 

[iverson]

I agree that the "Various Dornier projects..." style of posting causes duplication and makes the forum harder to use overall. But I also understand the urge to create these types of post--They provoke some of our more interesting discussions. So perhaps we should try to accommodate the urge while still achieving the degree of separation desired?

I suggest something like the following:

* Always create or use an existing, narrowly defined subject topic to describe a specific project in detail ("Gloster P.248 F.43/46 single-seat interceptor with 4.5-in recoilless gun", "Lockheed CL-1400 A-X contender").

* As needed, create/update broad, collation topics that provide links to the narrow topics, while allowing discussion ("Gloster fighter projects", "UK Interceptor projects 1945-55", "Projects to Specification F.43/46", "A-X Contenders", "USAF Close-Support projects").

The broad topics could go in the existing index section (perhaps renamed to make its use more intuitive, since it isn't a true index) or they could go in the existing historical/subject categories with a standard keyword in the subject line ("SURVEY", "GENERAL", or some some such). Personally, I think they would be most useful within the historical/subject categories. The index section could then be turned into something more like a true index.

Either way, the posting rule should be "create as many broad topics as you want PROVIDED that each individual project is in a separate linked topic."

 

[Stargazer]

The idea behind the "Various..." topics seems to have been misunderstood, so as the person who christened or created most of these, I feel compelled to explain the logic that presided over their existence.

It may not seem obvious these days, because of the many months worth of effort put into making some sense of it, but the early years of this forum generated hundreds of topics such as "German projects", "Pre-war bombers", "Little-known transports" and the likes, which contained all and sundry, typically strings of posts with pics that had little or no text enabling to find their contents in a forum search.
Some of these topics could be over 20 pages long.
As a result, it wasn't unusual to have posts about the same aircraft or project in three or four separate topics, sometimes spread over two or three different sections of this forum.

The first task was to split each of those threads into meaningful groups of posts that could stay together; then regroup these new temporary threads with other existing threads on the same subjects; then rename the resulting topics and make sure they were now in the right section of the forum.
When the whole thing was over and done with, there usually remained standalone posts that did not contain enough info or images to justify the creation of a topic of their own. This typically happened with projects whose manufacturer was identified but the type designation unknown.
So, instead of having 15 separate topics called "Unidentified Junkers project", "Unknown Junkers bomber", "Undesignated Junkers fighter" and so forth (as was also often the case previously), it seemed coherent to temporarily regroup them in generic topics by company and era, such as "Pre-war Junkers combat types", so that people could add new elements with time, and discuss the existing contents.

I do not know if my activity as an global moderator can be traced back (nor if anyone cares) but if someone could go back over it, they could see literally thousands of splits, merges, posts moved and/or renamed. This was the core of my activity as a global moderator on this forum for years, and in fact the sole reason why I wasn't simply a regular moderator. This change of status was made to enable my reorganizing the old topics and trying to make sense of a lot of orphaned threads.

BUT the logic has ALWAYS been that when a type or project has enough contents to justify a separate topic, it then gets split away from the generic post to start a life of its own. The generic topics exist only to keep together in one place the pics and bits of information that are too sparse, too isolated, too insignificant to justify the creation of a topic. They have NEVER been the place of choice to start sharing about a project that is well-documented.

I hope this clarifies the subject somehow.