Sikorsky Flying Cranes S-60 to S-64

[Jemiba]

Great link, thank you very much indeed !
One question I came about when seeing those photos: Did the S-60 use
the original retractable landing gear of the S-56 ? The photos of the engine
nacelles show it retracted, but I never saw photos of the S-60 with the gear up.

 

[Caravellarella]

Dear Boys and Girls, here is part of an article in French about the Sikorsky UTV (Universal Tactical Vehicle) helicopter "project" which was a proposed flying crane version of the Sikorsky S-61L. It is part of a larger article about Sikorsky flying crane helicopters in general......

The article comes from the 3rd February 1961 issue of Les Ailes......

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[robunos]

From the 'Big Deuce' site :-

http://www.big-deuce.de/d_pic12.htm

"S-60 Skycrane

The S-60 was developed as a research vehicle to determine the feasibility of the crane helicopter concept. The basic approach is to design a helicopter to carry external loads only. The conventional fuselage can deleted and only the minimum structure needed to hold the aircraft together substituted, thereby reducing empty weight and increasing payload. The S-60 used the dynamic components (engines, gearboxes, main rotor, tail rotor) of the S-56 installed on a skeleton fuselage. The most notable feature was a swiveling pilot's seat that allowed him to turn 180 degrees to face the load and operate the aircraft with a second set of controls. An aft facing window gave a good view of the load.
Only one was built and it made its first flight on March 25, 1959. The S-60 crashed April 3, 1961 and the remains are stored at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, USA."


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky S-60 during mine sweeping tests.

Source:
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Visschedijk/6268.htm


Additional Sikorsky S-60 photographs.

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cherrybomb13/5293933632/in/photostream/

 

[Caravellarella]

Dear Boys and Girls, here is a cover feature in French on the Sikorsky S-60 flying-crane helicopter prototype……

As the Sikorsky S-60 is quite clearly flying in both pictures; can it really be a "project"?

The feature comes from the 2nd May 1959 issue of Les Ailes......

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[Triton]

Tinsley, Frank "Workhorses of the Sky" Mechanix Illustrated September 1959

Source:
http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/2011/03/s-60-in-mechanix-illustrated-september.html

 

[Triton]

Tinsley, Frank "Workhorses of the Sky" Mechanix Illustrated September 1959

Source:
http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/2011/03/s-60-in-mechanix-illustrated-september.html

 

[Triton]

Advertisement of Sikorsky S-60 helicopter.

Source:
http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/airlines-and-aircraft-ads-1950s/95

 

[Stargazer]

A three-view that wasn't posted here before:

 

[Jemiba]

Good 3-view indeed, many thanks!
Can you tell us the source ?

 

[Stargazer]

Good 3-view indeed, many thanks!
Can you tell us the source ?

I couldn't say which book this was scanned from, unfortunately... :-\

 

[500 Fan]

The previously-mentioned restoration seems to be well under-way. It is good to see a unique helicopter like this being saved.

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=39221


500 Fan.

 

[Stargazer]

Still a long, long way to go, but it's nice to see the project under way.

 

[circle-5]

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

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky civilian crane helicopter brochure on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SIKORSKY-S-60-S-64-SKYCRANE-INFORMATION-HELICOPTER-BROCHURE-ALL-COLOR/331071744456?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D18580%26meid%3D2896090394108417755%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D8476%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D331071070141%26

 

[Stargazer]

Link provided doesn't work. Please fix. Thanks.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Works for me

 

[Stargazer]

Works for me

Clicking on the hyperlink in Triton's message takes me straight to THIS page...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Error?errid=17&item=331071744456

 

[Grey Havoc]

It worked for me just now. What browser were you using?

 

[circle-5]

It's not a browser issue, it's a country issue. eBay has caved into numerous local (and vocal) groups, to prevent buyers in certain countries from even seeing items that may be considered offensive by even the tiniest of minorities. These include historical WWII items (not just Nazi) in France and Germany, female bare breast illustrations in now-familiar religious countries, gun parts in others, etc. The list is long and the censorship method is crude (the word "WWII" in the title will typically ban an item from being seen in France.)

If someone in France wants to see this listing, they should change their main language preference to American English and reboot, because eBay always checks this operating system setting before allowing the bidder to not be offended. If that doesn't work, there may be other methods of censorship recently added by eBay. eBay employs an army of lawyers, who need to justify their existence, so this will only get worse.

 

[Triton]

Print of Sikorsky S-60 Crane found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-11-X-14-Color-Poster-Sikorsky-S-60-Crane-Helicopter-/231370838095?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35dec6d04f

 

[Triton]

Photograph of Sikorsky S-60 found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1960-Press-Photo-of-a-Sikorsky-S-60-Helicopter-/231392535204?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item35e011e2a4

 

[hesham]

Here is an early S-60 concept Model.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19561210/14/2

 

[hesham]

Hi,

here is early sketch to Sikorsky S-60 helicopter.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19591102/23/2

 

[fightingirish]

Sources:

• FLUG REVUE 01/2016
• Klassiker der Luftfahrt - Sikorsky S-60

 

[mil]

S-60

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky S-64B concept found on eBay.

Source:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-SIKORSKY-EXPERIMENTAL-CONCEPT-HELICOPTER-PHOTO-OF-DRAWING/263501621325?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D49917%26meid%3D5799db319d92418b8a81982076488bfc%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D5%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D263501594683%26itm%3D263501621325&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851

 

[Boxman]

Here's some British Pathe newsreel footage of the Sikorsky S-60 in action, carrying an automobile.

YouTube - British Pathé : "News in Flashes - USA - HELICOPTER CARRIES CAR TO SOLVE TRAFFIC PROBLEM" (1959)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N69UlHMw6vA

 

[yasotay]

And now the Erickson S-64F+

 

[Boombabb2]

On a related note, the restoration of the S-60 seems to be going well.

1958 Sikorsky S-60 “Flying Crane” | CT Air&Space Center

www.ctairandspace.org

 

[isayyo2]

A bit more info on the S-61F+

The S-64F+ is currently in the product development stage, and no projected date has been announced.

S-64F+ Air Crane Helicopter | Erickson Incorporated

Introducing the new S-64F+ Air Crane® helicopter, combining time-tested features with game-changing innovations and upgrades. Learn more.

ericksoninc.com

https://fireaviation.com/2021/12/03/erickson-plans-major-upgrades-for-the-s-64-air-crane-helicopter/

Sidenote to the Mods, would it make sense to merge these three topic into one thread?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sikorsky-flying-cranes-s-60-to-s-64.11408/
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sikorsky-flying-crane-projects.7783/
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ghes-th-55-for-bundeswehr-heersflieger.13963/

 

[jsport]

And now the Erickson S-64F+
View attachment 651309

It is embarassing that US/NATO can not come w/ a new future large crane helicopter requirement and competion. A few S-64F+ could be purchased as Proof of Concept for a new larger craft.

 

[yasotay]

Biggest challenge that Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM. I doubt they have the personnel needed to wade through the ten miles of bureaucratic bumpf that would be thrown at them to complete prior to getting funding for "a few S-64F". Need several Congressional delegations to support as well.

Perhaps sad, but it is the way of things in liberal western democracy these days.

I do note that they are proposing to use Sikorsky Matrix. That means Lockheed Martin. That is a potential means forward.

 

[riggerrob]

Biggest challenge that Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM. I doubt they have the personnel needed to wade through the ten miles of bureaucratic bumpf that would be thrown at them to complete prior to getting funding for "a few S-64F". Need several Congressional delegations to support as well.

Perhaps sad, but it is the way of things in liberal western democracy these days.

I do note that they are proposing to use Sikorsky Matrix. That means Lockheed Martin. That is a potential means forward.

I disagree.
Consider this proposal from the perspective of VIKING in Canada. VIKING has been overhauling and re-building deHavilland of Canada floatplanes for longer than most people can remember. Few of Harbour Air's DHC airplanes have many original components remaining after being re-built a dozen or more times. They have Supplementary Type Certificates for a variety of modifications and Parts Manufacturing Authority for all the high-wear components. By the time they bought the Type Certificates from Bombardier/DHC, Viking could almost build a DHC airplane from scratch. When they bought the Type Certificate, VIKING inherited hundreds of form blocks, allowing them to build all DHC components on original tooling. From there it was a simple (paperwork exercise) to combine all those STCs, PMAs and TCs into new-production DHC-6-400 Twin Otters. I saw all those concrete form blocks at Victoria International Airport.

With Erickson's decades long experience in over-hauling and upgrading Sikorsky Sky Cranes, it is more a paperwork exercise to start new production. I think they are already building new Skycranes for civilian contracts.

 

[jsport]

Biggest challenge that Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM. I doubt they have the personnel needed to wade through the ten miles of bureaucratic bumpf that would be thrown at them to complete prior to getting funding for "a few S-64F". Need several Congressional delegations to support as well.

Perhaps sad, but it is the way of things in liberal western democracy these days.

I do note that they are proposing to use Sikorsky Matrix. That means Lockheed Martin. That is a potential means forward.

One could hope a European country worried about forest fires (unfortunately France wont) would motivate LM to proceed, but yes unlikely. A wild chance for EADS/LM collaboration, potentially on a HLH in general. Modules make best. :}

 

[yasotay]

Biggest challenge that Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM. I doubt they have the personnel needed to wade through the ten miles of bureaucratic bumpf that would be thrown at them to complete prior to getting funding for "a few S-64F". Need several Congressional delegations to support as well.

Perhaps sad, but it is the way of things in liberal western democracy these days.

I do note that they are proposing to use Sikorsky Matrix. That means Lockheed Martin. That is a potential means forward.

I disagree.
Consider this proposal from the perspective of VIKING in Canada. VIKING has been overhauling and re-building deHavilland of Canada floatplanes for longer than most people can remember. Few of Harbour Air's DHC airplanes have many original components remaining after being re-built a dozen or more times. They have Supplementary Type Certificates for a variety of modifications and Parts Manufacturing Authority for all the high-wear components. By the time they bought the Type Certificates from Bombardier/DHC, they could almost build a DHC airplane from scratch. When they bought the Type Certificate, VIKING inherited hundreds of form blocks, allowing them to build all DHC components on original tooling. From there it was a simple (paperwork exercise) to combine all those STCs, PMAs and TCs into new-production DHC-6-400 Twin Otters.
With Erickson's decades long experience in over-hauling and upgrading Sikorsky Sky Cranes, it is more a paperwork exercise to start new production. I think they are already building new Skycranes for civilian contracts.

Perhaps you are right. With Erickson already building that is a huge step forward. My comment was mostly focused at military use. However, at the risk of sounding trite (which I am certainly not trying to be), the experience of building civil aircraft in Canada, is not the same misadventure of selling H-64+ to the United States Department of Defense, not to mention the United States Army that would have to cut other programs to fund/build yet another helicopter type. Unlike the other services, the Army sees flying machines as an exceedingly expensive necessary evil.
No doubt that the use of the H-64+ for civil forest fire operations will necessitate a requirement for more zero time aircraft.

 

[jsport]

generally, dense european urban areas would appear to be more threatened than US areas as US urbanization is a bit more spread. The Europeans, therefore, they should be more motivated to develop and or buy these creatures. Isnt last ditch, precision firefighting a thing?

 

[riggerrob]

Biggest challenge that Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM. I doubt they have the personnel needed to wade through the ten miles of bureaucratic bumpf that would be thrown at them to complete prior to getting funding for "a few S-64F". Need several Congressional delegations to support as well.

Perhaps sad, but it is the way of things in liberal western democracy these days.

I do note that they are proposing to use Sikorsky Matrix. That means Lockheed Martin. That is a potential means forward.

I disagree.
Consider this proposal from the perspective of VIKING in Canada. VIKING has been overhauling and re-building deHavilland of Canada floatplanes for longer than most people can remember. Few of Harbour Air's DHC airplanes have many original components remaining after being re-built a dozen or more times. They have Supplementary Type Certificates for a variety of modifications and Parts Manufacturing Authority for all the high-wear components. By the time they bought the Type Certificates from Bombardier/DHC, they could almost build a DHC airplane from scratch. When they bought the Type Certificate, VIKING inherited hundreds of form blocks, allowing them to build all DHC components on original tooling. From there it was a simple (paperwork exercise) to combine all those STCs, PMAs and TCs into new-production DHC-6-400 Twin Otters.
With Erickson's decades long experience in over-hauling and upgrading Sikorsky Sky Cranes, it is more a paperwork exercise to start new production. I think they are already building new Skycranes for civilian contracts.

Perhaps you are right. With Erickson already building that is a huge step forward. My comment was mostly focused at military use. However, at the risk of sounding trite (which I am certainly not trying to be), the experience of building civil aircraft in Canada, is not the same misadventure of selling H-64+ to the United States Department of Defense, not to mention the United States Army that would have to cut other programs to fund/build yet another helicopter type. Unlike the other services, the Army sees flying machines as an exceedingly expensive necessary evil.
No doubt that the use of the H-64+ for civil forest fire operations will necessitate a requirement for more zero time aircraft.

Perhaps new-production Skycranes should go directly to state National Guard regiments. Consider that the last US Army Skycranes were operated by units like the Nevada Army Reserve or National Guard. State National Guard understand the local fire-fighting role far better than the Pentagon. Many states would cheerfully blur the defense and local disaster relief/fire-fighting roles with the state governor ordering state National Guard squadrons to devote "X" number of hours per year to fire-fighting duties.

 

[yasotay]

I agree that is the most likely spot for an H-64+ platform, and that the reasoning is practical. While the political clout of the U.S. Army National Guard is very impressive, without mark ups to the budget something comes off. It would likely require the loss of other platforms. The NG does not have AH-64 battalions because of their warfighting capability. They have them because there are ~30 more permeant positions per unit than say a UH-60 battalion. So if there are not at least an equal number of positions, it might not be the shoe-in that practical reasoning dictates.

 

[isayyo2]

Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM

I believe Erickson is the legal OEM now, since they purchase the type certificate in the 90s. Though the legal hurdles are not my forte and I would be happy to be corrected.

A partnership with say Boeing and Honeywell with the uprated T55s and the new gearbox from the Block II CH-47F sounds like a winning combination.