Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk

[Colonial-Marine]

Every time I see the S-67 I wonder how it is that the US Army had the AH-56, the Bell 309, and the S-67 all flying and somehow ended up buying none of them. I have a lot of appreciation for the AH-64 they later ended up with but that didn't enter service until many years later.

 

[Cjc]

I wonder wich would have been better, AH-56 or the s-67.

 

[F-14D]

Every time I see the S-67 I wonder how it is that the US Army had the AH-56, the Bell 309, and the S-67 all flying and somehow ended up buying none of them. I have a lot of appreciation for the AH-64 they later ended up with but that didn't enter service until many years later.

The AH-56 was designed for the Advanced Aerial Fire Support System requirement for which it federated Sikorsky's S-66 proposal. S-67 actually was not originally intended for sale, but rather to try and block support for Lockheed's rigid rotor technology by demonstrating you didn't need a new tech rigid rotor to get high maneuverability and speed. In this it succeeded. However, given it was sitting right there big as life, a number of countries, significantly Israel, started asking," Are you suuurrre there can't be a production version of this"? Seeing the potential $$$, Sikorsky started a sales tour. With the problems with the AH-56, Army decided to have a competition to see what would be the best way to go to meet the AAFSS requirement. Bell joined in with the model 309 Kingcobra as a lower cost option. After the evaluation, Army decided that this type pf helicopter was not the way to go after all, you can speculate on the reasons for that. Instead they started the Advanced Attack Helicopter program that emphasized smaller size and more agility and de-emphasized speed and load carrying ability. Bell and Hughes competed for that, with Hughes' design clearly superior.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


as I discovered before the Sikorsky DS-507 & DS-509,the S-67 was called DS-508;

S-67 - ScaleRCHelis.com

From Aviation magazine 1974.

 

[Boyington]

in French Aviation magazine 1971. Little contribution. If you are happy, i'm happy.

 

[Dmlb1950]

I saw it at Ft. Eustis, VA in 1971 and was very impressed with performance, as well as the looks. However, it was a very large helicopter when sitting next to a AH-1, OH-58 or UH-1. It is too bad that it wasn't procured by some government. It seems probable to me that further development for specific services could have resulted in an aircraft as capable as the AH-64 and/or AH-1Z. It was a very impressive aircraft.

 

[hesham]

as I discovered before the Sikorsky DS-507 & DS-509,the S-67 was called DS-508;

S-67 - ScaleRCHelis.com

Hi,

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk

American Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk When the Armed Aerial Fire Support System program was delayed, Sikorsky offered an armed version of the SH-3 Sea King (Sikorsky S-61) initially. Following other AAFSS issues, the company developed an intermediate and high-speed attack aircraft called the Sikorsky ...

forum.warthunder.com

 

[riggerrob]

Anigrand sells a 1/72 scale resin model of Sikorsky's S-67 Blackhawk for $58.

 

[Basil]

as I discovered before the Sikorsky DS-507 & DS-509,the S-67 was called DS-508;

S-67 - ScaleRCHelis.com

Hi,

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk

American Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk When the Armed Aerial Fire Support System program was delayed, Sikorsky offered an armed version of the SH-3 Sea King (Sikorsky S-61) initially. Following other AAFSS issues, the company developed an intermediate and high-speed attack aircraft called the Sikorsky ...

forum.warthunder.com

These three side view diagrams by Hans Redemann are unmistakeable in their style.

 

[Onehoof]

S-67 Blackhawk at the 1974 Farnborough Airshow.

 

[Onehoof]

Byron Graham, Sikorsky's Chief R&D Test Pilot, under the tail of the S-67 to get some shade, during its tour from Paris to the Mid-east in the early 1970's

Note the Blackhawk's long wire antenna that runs to the stabilizer, next to Byron.

 

[Onehoof]

Guys, I run the Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk Group on Facebook. Send me a request and you can join my group. I look forward to seeing you there.

Charles Verax

 

[Onehoof]

This is a great close up of the S-67.

 

[Onehoof]

The S-67 made the newspapers pretty often.

 

[Onehoof]

This is a great black and white photo.

 

[Onehoof]

Farnborough 1974

 

[Onehoof]

Butch Wellmaker’s beautifully detailed scratch built RC Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk.

 

[Onehoof]

Butch Wellmaker’s beautifully detailed scratch built RC Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk.

 

[Onehoof]

Alamy pic of the S-67.

 

[Onehoof]

Awesome photo of the S-67.

 

[Onehoof]

I circled the hatch that opens on the belly in the rear, which is how Soldiers loaded and offloaded from the Blackhawk. It had a seating capacity of six troops in the back.

 

[GTX]

I circled the hatch that opens on the belly in the rear, which is how Soldiers loaded and offloaded from the Blackhawk. It had a seating capacity of six troops in the back.

Not exactly conducive to quick entry/exit it would seem.

 

[sferrin]

I circled the hatch that opens on the belly in the rear, which is how Soldiers loaded and offloaded from the Blackhawk. It had a seating capacity of six troops in the back.

Not exactly conducive to quick entry/exit it would seem.

How do troops exit an Apache?

 

[GTX]

I circled the hatch that opens on the belly in the rear, which is how Soldiers loaded and offloaded from the Blackhawk. It had a seating capacity of six troops in the back.

Not exactly conducive to quick entry/exit it would seem.

How do troops exit an Apache?

My comment was not re the pilot and gunner/WSO but rather re the mentioned 6 troops in the back.

 

[sferrin]

I circled the hatch that opens on the belly in the rear, which is how Soldiers loaded and offloaded from the Blackhawk. It had a seating capacity of six troops in the back.

Not exactly conducive to quick entry/exit it would seem.

How do troops exit an Apache?

My comment was not re the pilot and gunner/WSO but rather re the mentioned 6 troops in the back.

Yeah.

 

[Onehoof]

I circled the hatch that opens on the belly in the rear, which is how Soldiers loaded and offloaded from the Blackhawk. It had a seating capacity of six troops in the back.

Not exactly conducive to quick entry/exit it would seem.

No. Definitely not. I believe they were going to install side doors over the wings on production models.

I circled the hatch that opens on the belly in the rear, which is how Soldiers loaded and offloaded from the Blackhawk. It had a seating capacity of six troops in the back.

Not exactly conducive to quick entry/exit it would seem.

How do troops exit an Apache?

My comment was not re the pilot and gunner/WSO but rather re the mentioned 6 troops in the back.

Yeah.

There was a fold down door on the belly behind the door on the prototype S-67 Blackhawk.

Production models would have had side doors above the wings.

 

[GTX]

I circled the hatch that opens on the belly in the rear, which is how Soldiers loaded and offloaded from the Blackhawk. It had a seating capacity of six troops in the back.

Not exactly conducive to quick entry/exit it would seem.

No. Definitely not. I believe they were going to install side doors over the wings on production models.
There was a fold down door on the belly behind the door on the prototype S-67 Blackhawk.

Production models would have had side doors above the wings.

Ah ok

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I wonder wich would have been better, AH-56 or the s-67.

I still wonder that myself. What's "better" can be a complicated question though. The AH-56 would naturally fit the AAFSS requirements better but the S-67 had benefits like being lower risk and the ability to carry some soldiers in back. I guess the biggest question is how much value do you place on the extra speed that the AH-56 would have at its disposal? The S-67 was still quite fast though.

The biggest tragedy I think is that we got neither of them.

 

[yasotay]

The S-67 was the first helicopter I ever looked at and thought was exceedingly cool. The reasons for both platforms not getting into production are well known, but I must admit to having spent more than one day dream wondering at the efficacy of either platform in combat.

 

[Jaychee123]

Don’t know' if anyone is interested, but I flew in the S-67 from Gutersloh, in what was then West Germany on 22 September 1972. Captain was John A McKenna (died January 7th, 2013) who was an executive VP with Sikorsky at the time. The aircraft was on a tour of W Germany at the time and also visited, I believe, Heeresflugplatz Bückeburg with the Bundeswehr along with Sikorsky's CH-53.

I was a training officer (QHI) with 18 Squadron flying the Wessex 2 (S-58 built under licence by Westland Helicopters with x2 Gnome gas turbines shoehorned into the droopy nose!) from Gutersloh at the time. The Wessex had a fully-articulated rotor head/system likewise theS-67, so maintaining positive G was mandatory or else control power would be compromised.

My time airborne, in the front seat of the S-67 was about 15 minutes and McKenna conducted a number of manoeuvres.

First, a barrel-roll, maintaining +G, which I then attempted with ‘talk through’ and in which the aircraft lost considerable altitude L, followed by McKenna’s roll and pull-through, simulating an ordnance delivery attack, during which the airspeed indicated around the 200 knot mark.

‘Following through’ on the controls, it was evident that relatively coarse control movements were required. Helicopter pilots usually attempt to keep such movements smooth and with only the optimum required deflection to ensure ideal handling.

Later, on the dispersal, I saw little evidence of any troop-carrying capacity and when main transmission/rotor head panels were opened for servicing/inspection, they seemed to require some ‘buttoning up’ with dusz or similar type fasteners to secure them. It did not seem that similar folding servicing/access platforms, as per Wessex, had been developed. However, I may be mistaken as my view was not of the best.

I so qualified for the S-67 ‘Rollem’ Club certificate.

(Certificate Attached)

 

[ZacYates]

Thank you for sharing Jim, and thanks too for sharing your certificate!

 

[Jaychee123]

Thank you for sharing Jim, and thanks too for sharing your certificate!

You are welcome

 

[Scott Kenny]

"No full text document exists for this AD Number."

place a zero between the AD and the rest of the numbers when you get that error.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0771161.pdf

 

[hesham]

Hi,


as I discovered before the Sikorsky DS-507 & DS-509,the S-67 was called DS-508;

S-67 - ScaleRCHelis.com

Another drawing,from different source ?,

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/53/52/00/535200fe5276018ffabc77517bc409be.jpg

 

[Scott Kenny]

The AH-56 was designed for the Advanced Aerial Fire Support System requirement for which it federated Sikorsky's S-66 proposal. S-67 actually was not originally intended for sale, but rather to try and block support for Lockheed's rigid rotor technology by demonstrating you didn't need a new tech rigid rotor to get high maneuverability and speed. In this it succeeded. However, given it was sitting right there big as life, a number of countries, significantly Israel, started asking," Are you suuurrre there can't be a production version of this"? Seeing the potential $$$, Sikorsky started a sales tour. With the problems with the AH-56, Army decided to have a competition to see what would be the best way to go to meet the AAFSS requirement. Bell joined in with the model 309 Kingcobra as a lower cost option. After the evaluation, Army decided that this type pf helicopter was not the way to go after all, you can speculate on the reasons for that. Instead they started the Advanced Attack Helicopter program that emphasized smaller size and more agility and de-emphasized speed and load carrying ability. Bell and Hughes competed for that, with Hughes' design clearly superior.

And here we are today, with the FVL programs being highly focused on speed and load carrying ability...

 

[yasotay]

And here we are today, with the FVL programs being highly focused on speed and load carrying ability...

To be fair, at the time the Soviet Union had a significant advantage in tanks and artillery over NATO. Any major combat (Corps on Armies) was expected to be in a relatively small frontage. It was expected that armed rotorcraft would be moving from rearm to front lines in short hops vice great distances. To survive you needed to maneuver between trees. So, platforms that were originally designed for larger distances and longer loiter times were considered redundant. The US Army also rationalized it needed a lot of tanks, so the very expensive high-speed rotorcraft became redundant.

Of course, now we have come full circle and expect distances and reaction time to be higher priority.

 

[sferrin]

Don’t know' if anyone is interested, but I flew in the S-67 from Gutersloh, in what was then West Germany on 22 September 1972. Captain was John A McKenna (died January 7th, 2013) who was an executive VP with Sikorsky at the time. The aircraft was on a tour of W Germany at the time and also visited, I believe, Heeresflugplatz Bückeburg with the Bundeswehr along with Sikorsky's CH-53.

I was a training officer (QHI) with 18 Squadron flying the Wessex 2 (S-58 built under licence by Westland Helicopters with x2 Gnome gas turbines shoehorned into the droopy nose!) from Gutersloh at the time. The Wessex had a fully-articulated rotor head/system likewise theS-67, so maintaining positive G was mandatory or else control power would be compromised.

My time airborne, in the front seat of the S-67 was about 15 minutes and McKenna conducted a number of manoeuvres.

First, a barrel-roll, maintaining +G, which I then attempted with ‘talk through’ and in which the aircraft lost considerable altitude L, followed by McKenna’s roll and pull-through, simulating an ordnance delivery attack, during which the airspeed indicated around the 200 knot mark.

‘Following through’ on the controls, it was evident that relatively coarse control movements were required. Helicopter pilots usually attempt to keep such movements smooth and with only the optimum required deflection to ensure ideal handling.

Later, on the dispersal, I saw little evidence of any troop-carrying capacity and when main transmission/rotor head panels were opened for servicing/inspection, they seemed to require some ‘buttoning up’ with dusz or similar type fasteners to secure them. It did not seem that similar folding servicing/access platforms, as per Wessex, had been developed. However, I may be mistaken as my view was not of the best.

I so qualified for the S-67 ‘Rollem’ Club certificate.

(Certificate Attached)

One of my favorite What Ifs.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/64/ca/e464ca75fa891c511bf693eed09ddee7.jpg

 

[jsport]

Don’t know' if anyone is interested, but I flew in the S-67 from Gutersloh, in what was then West Germany on 22 September 1972. Captain was John A McKenna (died January 7th, 2013) who was an executive VP with Sikorsky at the time. The aircraft was on a tour of W Germany at the time and also visited, I believe, Heeresflugplatz Bückeburg with the Bundeswehr along with Sikorsky's CH-53.

I was a training officer (QHI) with 18 Squadron flying the Wessex 2 (S-58 built under licence by Westland Helicopters with x2 Gnome gas turbines shoehorned into the droopy nose!) from Gutersloh at the time. The Wessex had a fully-articulated rotor head/system likewise theS-67, so maintaining positive G was mandatory or else control power would be compromised.

My time airborne, in the front seat of the S-67 was about 15 minutes and McKenna conducted a number of manoeuvres.

First, a barrel-roll, maintaining +G, which I then attempted with ‘talk through’ and in which the aircraft lost considerable altitude L, followed by McKenna’s roll and pull-through, simulating an ordnance delivery attack, during which the airspeed indicated around the 200 knot mark.

‘Following through’ on the controls, it was evident that relatively coarse control movements were required. Helicopter pilots usually attempt to keep such movements smooth and with only the optimum required deflection to ensure ideal handling.

Later, on the dispersal, I saw little evidence of any troop-carrying capacity and when main transmission/rotor head panels were opened for servicing/inspection, they seemed to require some ‘buttoning up’ with dusz or similar type fasteners to secure them. It did not seem that similar folding servicing/access platforms, as per Wessex, had been developed. However, I may be mistaken as my view was not of the best.

I so qualified for the S-67 ‘Rollem’ Club certificate.

(Certificate Attached)

could hardly be more jealous

 

[TomS]

Hi,

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/64/ca/e464ca75fa891c511bf693eed09ddee7.jpg

Source? Other than Pinterest?

This looks interesting, but I haven't seen even a hint of the idea before. There was a concept for the Sea King with Sparrows (and it doesn't seem to have required Phantom radar) but a Naval Blackhawk seems new.