Jos Heyman said:Some interesting finds by Maveric: the S-28, S-63 and this transport aircraft.
The data I had so far said:
"The S-28 designation was first used in June 1919 for a heavy bomber design for the White army of Kolchak.
The designation was again used in November 1919 for a multiseater biplane with a span of app. 40 m and three engines of 700hp. There were two versions of the project:
· Option "A" - two engines placed on the lower wing, the third in the nose or the back of the nacelle fuselage; and
· Option "B" - two engines placed on the lower wing, third on the upper wing, tailplane had a different form of fastening."
This drawing, dated 22 April (or is it July) 1919 does not nicely fit.
As far as the S-63 is concerned, this is what I had so far:
"Also known as S-62B, the S-63 referred to a S-62 fitted with a S-58 rotor system."
The picture does not look like that at all.
Finally, the 4 engined transport looks very late 1940s to me - this was the time Sikorsky was seriously working on helicopters, so why a transport diversion?
Just some thoughts...
Jemiba said:Sorry Ardavan, but those are drawings of the Convair Trans-Oceanic Flying Boat, NOT Sikorsky designs.
Ardavan.K said:You are right Jembia.. My Mistake...Is there any way to remove them ?!
Regards,
AK
The February 2013 issue of the Sikorsky Archives News agrees with this listing of the S-46 through S-49, and they ought to know!Stargazer2006 said:Recent evidence provided by Maveric seems to point to a very different allocation of Sikorsky's S-46 to S-48 designations. This leads to the following modified list:
Same source (attached image) also clearly gives the V-tailed flying crane project as the S-63.
- S-46 = VS-300 and VS-300A
- S-47 = VS-316A (R-4, HNS)
- S-48 = VS-327 (R-5, HO2S)
Considering the overall quality and reliability of the source, I'm strongly inclined to believe that the above is correct.
In that case, the following designations would remain a follows:
- S-49 = VS-316B (R-6, HOS)
- S-50 = uncompleted project
- S-51 = H-5, HO3S-1, etc.
Link: https://twitter.com/TheWoracle/statuses/436184054082600960Graham Warwick @TheWoracle 19. Feb.
@SikorskyAircrft CH-53K facts: 4 flight-test engineering development models are YCH-53Ks, model number is S-95, name to come at May rollout.
Source: https://flic.kr/p/2afArysSkyblazer said:Here is a list of as-yet undesignated Sikorsky projects and prototypes which I have pics of (by no means exhaustive!):
Tests of parasol wings on biplane airframes:
[...][...]
- UTV Universal Tactical Vehicle flying crane proposal
Found this photo of the Sikorsky S-54, interesting configuration.The Sikorsky helicopters designations you are quoting are not quite right.
Here is the correct allocation of the early US helicopters:
S-46: VS-300
S-47: VS-300A
S-48: VS-316A = R-4
S-49: VS-316B = R-6
S-50: VS-327 = R-5 to R-5E and HO2S
S-51: H-5F to H-5H and HO3S
S-52: H-18 and HO5S
S-53: XHJS-1
S-54: R-4 modified in sesqui-tandem configuration
View: https://twitter.com/clark_aviation/status/1598262631252385792?s=20&t=oTmpbp7Nojmu9lLN1DDhggS-56 *MOJAVE / °WESTMINSTER US Marines large ASW helicopter and *transport Army variant, also built by Westland° [HR2S]
It has always been a mystery to me, but it might have had something to do with how difficult "HS2S-1" may have been to pronounce and remember!Any known reason why the Sea King was designated HSS-2 by the US Navy, suggesting that it was a variant of the HSS, instead of HS2S?
It has always been a mystery to me, but it might have had something to do with how difficult "HS2S-1" may have been to pronounce and remember!