Super Frelon and developments

I can't find a thread dedicated to this helicopter, and have some questions, so here goes..

Until very recently, this was the largest helicopter designed and built in Western Europe.
Sikorsky were involved with the rotor design, and Fiat with the transmission.

It first flew in 1962, and served with France until 2010.

Only 99 were produced between 1962 and 1970.

A large 3 engined helicopter with a large carrying capacity, and a boat shaped hull.
Apart from France, it was exported to South Africa, Israel, Iraq, Libya, and China.

Why was this helicopter not more successful?
I know it was designed primarily for the maritime environment.
South Africa did use it up in hot and high conditions and in combat, before deciding it wasn't suitable for the climate, and relegating it to coastal environs.
Israel re-engined theirs with GE T-58's pushing out far more power.

I think the only current user is China.
This was a very important helicopter for the Chinese, as it was the first helicopter capable of serving from a naval deck, with the first ever landing on a vessel being in 1980, with a Super Frelon.
It was also used in the recovery of China's first ever proper ICBM.
Recently, a version sporting a rear mounted radar has been spotted, and is mooted to be an AEW airframe for carrier use.

It appears China ordered 13 from France, and then produced it under the designation of the Z-8.
This Z-8 provides the basis for a vastly upgraded version called the AC-313, which seems to be aimed at the civil market..

How did Israels re-engined SF's perform?
Is the Z-8 a licence produced airframe, or a copy?
The modernised AC-313 version - is it purely aimed at the civil sector, or are there military versions planned?
This I assume is an indigineous chopper now?

Why was it the first capable of operating from a ship? Surely there were smaller helos that could have done that earlier. After all, doesn't a helo just need enough room to sit?

I'm not quite sure, although it is worth bearing in mind that the Chinese navy was a coastal force with small vessels until that time.
I think up until that time their major vessels were a few obsolete hand-me-down Soviet destroyers with no air facilities.

It certainly is a big helicopter to cut your teeth on.

I found a set of drawings in "Der Flieger", May 1964. Showing what principally are known versions (though
I have some difficulties in identifying them correctly), there's at least one, that remained a project.
On the left, there are, I think:
- SA 3210-01 (first prototype)
- SA 3210-02 (second prototype with sponsons)

and on the right:
- SA 321G (ASW with foldable tail)
- SA 321F (commercial transport)
- SA 321, suffix unknown (crane helicopter, project)

Thank you Jemiba.

On the link below are some wonderful historic pictures as the Super Frelon was flown and developed.

http://aerostories.free.fr/giravia/helico/liron/liron05/page2.html

Latest family member, the Z-8YJ AEW version !

Photo of the SA 3210 rotor head. If the arrangement looks familiar, that's because it was designed and built by Sikorsky in Stratford, Connecticut. France did not have the know-how to build hydraulically self-retracting rotor blades, while Sikorsky had already built a similar (though larger) system for the massive HR2S and H-37 helicopters.

After a small run at Sikorsky, these assemblies were later completed by Sud Aviation under license. Shown here is the first prototype SA 3210, now in a museum at Le Bourget airport, where Lindbergh completed his famous flight in 1927.

A couple of other notes about the Frelon.

Flight in 1964 reported:

The West German Government was interested in the development of the SA 3210, but—
in view of the Weser licences for the S-61—now appears to be reviewing the situation
very carefully.

Click to expand...

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%201543.html

FIAT produced the main gearbox, having previously built the dynamic systems for Sud's license-production of the S-58. Don't know if the also built the other gearboxes but they participated in their design.

What baffles me about South Africa's experience of the Frelon is that Sud tested the helicopter to MTOW at ISA+22 and 2,000 metres. Alternatively it could lift-off at MTOW at ISA and 4,000 metres. So why did they have such hot-and-high problems...?

Kiltonge said:

What baffles me about South Africa's experience of the Frelon is that Sud tested the helicopter to MTOW at ISA+22 and 2,000 metres. Alternatively it could lift-off at MTOW at ISA and 4,000 metres. So why did they have such hot-and-high problems...?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I noted this remark in SA Arms and Armour by Romer Heitman: Experience has shown that it is not efficient when operated under "hot and High" conditions.


Also, the SA Airforce Museum has this on their website:

It was during this operation that the SAAF discovered that although the Super Frelon performed exceptionally well at sea level, this helicopter was completely outperformed by the Puma helicopter at high altitudes and in very hot and dry areas. As a result, all the Super Frelon helicopters were transferred to the coast and were based at 15 Squadron in Durban and 16 Squadron based at Ysterplaat in Cape Town.

Click to expand...

http://www.saafmuseum.org/exhib/aircraft-on-display/helicopters/318-aerospatiale-sa321l-309


A few things to consider then, in my opinion. Perhaps SA had early less powerful engines? I do know that power was increased during the Super Frelons production or lifetime.
They are comparing it also to the Puma, which was a great helicopter all round, so not surprising really.
Perhaps the French testing were flown in conditions not experienced in SA? ISA+22 I take it to be International Standard Atmosphere 22 degrees? If so, this is nowhere near some of the conditions it would have been operated in, but I stand under correction on what is meant by ISA+22.
Wiki does state that ISA is measured according to mid latitude atmospheric conditions.
Perhaps France didn't test with dust filters? I know in the operational area where the SA Airforce was operating those would be a must.
Also, there must be a reason Israel also re-engined theirs. Spares commonality I gather, but I doubt they did it simply for that only.


Or maybe a combination of all.

Indeed the reason why the Super Frelon was not build in greater number is that the Puma filled the transport role cheaper - the Armée de Terre still use large numbers of totally obsolete Pumas (no de-icing system to fly during winter...)
As for the French Navy the smaller Lynx filled the ASW role better - it could land on smaller ships.
Israel bought some Super Frelon because they were impressed by its payload - think it could carry a small armoured vehicle part of Israel arsenal (can't remember the name).
Once the super Frelon operational the Israelis discovered its performance dropped substantially with their very hot, desertic climate. Their Super Frelon were then used for SAR - during the Six Day war they searched and recovered pilots that had bailed out within arabs territories. Later the Israelis bought Sikorsky S-53 for the heavy transport role and they tried to re-engine their Super Frelons with american turbines - with very limited success.

Latest variant, the Z-18A - or better to say officially Z-8G - entered service.

kaiserbill said:

Apart from France, it was exported to South Africa, Israel, Iraq, Libya, and China.

Click to expand...

Some of the Israeli machines were re-exported to Argentina, as well.

How did Israels re-engined SF's perform?

Click to expand...

They were re-engined after Yom Kippur war. By that time the CH-53 Yasur had entered IAF service, with superior performance and lower operating costs. Even the T-58s did not completely close that gap.
The Tsira was still used, notably during the 1982 Peace for Galilee war, but no longer as the spearhead it once was.

When an opportunity arose, they were sold off to Argentina.

And the Iraqis used these choppers to throw Exocets at tankers during the epnymous tanker war of 1985. Later Super etendards and Mirage FEEQ did a better job.

SuperFrelon in Argentina ? sure you're not mixing with the Daggers ?

Edit: Ah yes ! just checked, some sources mention 8 sold to Argentina.
Would love to see a pict of these...

Huuum, 8 ex-Israeli SA321 in Argentina???

Total 12 SA321K were delivered to Israel between 1966 & 1969.
In "Le Fana de l'Aviation" n° 370 (table here-after), 7 are preserved at the IDF/AF Museum and one preserved at Tel Nof AFB

Indeed 8 seems a bit much then
This is the (only) page i've found mentioning these (without pictures of any argentinian example):
http://fdra.blogspot.fr/2015/11/helicoptero-pesado-aerospatiale-sa-321.html
It says "Ocho aviones israelíes volvieron a motor con motores T58 y más tarde vendido a la Argentina."...
Dunno spanish but what i read is "eight aircrafts flew with T58 then later sold to Argentina". .?

I wrote this from memory, without thinking much about it --and without verifying.
In fact, going to the IDF/AF page on the Tsira at http://www.iaf.org.il/208-he/IAF.aspx , it says "ב-1991 הוצא המסוק משרות פעיל", ie that they were taken off service in 1991, not that they were sold off.

So most likely this was a red herring rumor and the sale never happened. My bad.

The West Germans were interested in Super Frelons for their medium lift helicopter requirement, which was later met by CH53.
I am puzzled why France never bothered buying helicopters like the SF or CH47/53 and just relied on Pumas. The RAF was forced to for many years until 1980.

famvburg said:

Why was it the first capable of operating from a ship? Surely there were smaller helos that could have done that earlier. After all, doesn't a helo just need enough room to sit?

Click to expand...

That depends upon the sea state.
Any helicopter can land on a calm deck that is large enough, but to land on a pitching and rolling deck, you need some sort of rapid securing method ... and no! Sailors with chains are not fast enough.
When I worked on the flight deck of HMCS Iroquois, we used chains, a tail probe and the Beartrap haul-down system.
We often landed Sikorsky Sea King helicopters on a deck that was rolling 30 degrees. The ship was narrower than the main rotor diameter and the tail rotor hung over the back edge of the flight deck.

Deino said:

Latest variant, the Z-18A - or better to say officially Z-8G - entered service.

Click to expand...

Wow ... I completely missed to add the latest member of the venerable Z-8 family; the Z-8L. In fact it has barely any resemblance anymore.

uk 75 said:

The West Germans were interested in Super Frelons for their medium lift helicopter requirement, which was later met by CH53.
I am puzzled why France never bothered buying helicopters like the SF or CH47/53 and just relied on Pumas. The RAF was forced to for many years until 1980.

Click to expand...

It was just like heavy fighters with two engines: an unaffordable luxury. The AdT Pumas have lasted (and still last !) a time nearly as long as Metuslah (1965 !) ; proof there was few if none money for alternatives.

The Chinese on the other hand have done a damn fine job with that chopper. That one looks like the bastard child of a Frelon with a NH90.

No Super Frelons were sold to Argentina by Israel. Here is my accounting of the Israeli airframes. 12 were bought, 4 were lost and the other eight are all accounted for. If you look on airliners.net, I have pictures of five of them in the IAF museum. I remember at least one other derelict airframe in the boneyard of the museum.

Aerospatiale Super Frelon
6 1967 SA.321Ka
6 1967 SA.321Kb
-1 25-Dec-68
-1 27-Apr-74 Amir Amit/Levi Golan Syrian AAA, crew + 3 psgs killed
-1 01-Jul-80 Rebuilt?
-1 15-Aug-84 ?/Nof Erez Crashed in Judea desert, one passenger killed
-7 31-Dec-96 020 To IAF Museum
-1 31-May-97 To Haifa Tech School

While we are on the subject, here is a picture of the SE 2000 prototype, which had an unusual tail boom:

And, here is the airframe modified to enable it to set three international speed records: over a 3-km (1.9 mi.) course, at limited altitude, with 341.18 km/h (approximately 212 mph), over a 15 to 25 km (9.3 to 15.5 mi.) course, at unrestricted height, with 350.29 km/h (approximately 218 mph) and 334 km/h (207 mph) in a closed circuit of 100 km (62.1 mi.) along the route Istres-Arles-Saintes-Maries-de-La Mer on July 22 and 23, 1963.

The Agusta A.101 (originally designated AZ.101) was a large prototype transport helicopter developed in Italy during the 1960s. Despite prospective orders from the Italian armed forces, no buyers emerged and the project was abandoned in 1971... A101 abandoned then later emerged the EH101 project, mi-Eighties.

Similar formula with 3 motors and identical size with the SA Super-Frelon

Why no project, from Italian and french sides, to built a Super Super-frelon ?

Have there ever been more advanced versions of the Super-Frelon, in France, as a secret project ? when needed as a successor to the Super-Frelon ?

As an internal Sud Aviation / Aerospatiale alternative to the NHI NH-90 ? Never never ??

( Besides SA-3230 pictured in sncase-sud-est-aviation-projects.3178/ )

Any other information about the "SA 321, suffix unknown (crane helicopter, project)" ? ( other than the copie of Air Pictorial September 1959, in sncase-sud-est-aviation-projects.3178/ )

The issues that prevented the Super Frelon becoming more widespread were both technical and strategic. The technical problems with the helicopter were that it was under-powered and expensive to operate. It was powered by 3 Turbomeca Turmo engines developing around 1550 hp for take-off. The Turmo's were from the second generation of turboshaft engines from Turbomeca. They were relatively simple engines with a single axial compressor feeding a single centrifugal compressor, with a modest compression ratio of about 5,8:1. This meant that it was not very efficient and guzzled fuel, and it lost power quickly under hot and/or high conditions. Performance of the helicopters was adequate at sea level but deteriorated rapidly under hot/high conditions.

Two engines will always use more fuel than a single engine of the same power, if the engines are technically otherwise similar. This is true for petrol engines, diesel engines and turboshafts. For instance: two 1000 hp engines will be less fuel efficient than a single 2000 hp engine, if the engines are otherwise technically similar. The 3 turmos therefore guzzled fuel and services or overhauls involved three rather than the two engines more commonly seen on other large helicopters. This was very expensive and prevented the Super Frelon from being successful in civilian use. A few did see service in oil rig support but operating costs saw them being quickly being replaced by Sikorski S-61's, Pumas or other, smaller machines.

Super Frelons were exported to the Israelis, South Africa, Iraq, Lybia and China. The opinion of the Iraqi's and Lybians are not known, but both the Israelis and the South Africans were unhappy with the lifting performance of the helicopters. The Israelis solved the problem by replacing the Turmos with 3 General Electric T58-GE 16 engines developing 1870 hp each while the South Africans limited their machines to coastal use.

Strategically, the Super Frelon always had to compete with the Sikorsky S-65 (CH-53), which was much more capable than the Super Frelon, and with the Sikorsky S-61 which, although less capable at sea level, could carry as many troops and was cheaper to operate. Germany was indeed interested in the Super Frelon but chose the C-53 and Israel also later replaced their Felons with C-53 machines.

We know that Aerospatiale used a lot of American technology in the design of the Super Frelon. In my opinion, this should have included using American engines. Obvious candidates are the General Electric T64 or the Lycoming T55 engine. The Lycoming engines were then being installed in the Chinook which was developed at about the same time as the Frelon. If two T55's were used in the French machines, the prototypes would probably have been equipped with two T55 L-5 engines of 2200 hp each, the first production helicopters would have had 2650 hp L-7b units and from 1966 onwards, 2850 hp L-7c engines could have been fitted. This would have resulted in the helicopter being much more powerful and economical, especially under hot and high conditions, and the French would have benefitted from American experience with the engines as far as extending time between overhauls (TBO), etc. It is also quite conceivable that Turbomeca could have produced the T55 engines under licence. Lycoming licenced several manufacturers to produce the smaller T53 engine under licence. Depending on the conditions of the licencing arrangements, export to countries like Lybia and China could have been problematical though.

To be honest though: would use of the American engines have led to more widespread use of the Super Frelon? Probably not. The C-53 would still have been more capable, but the Israelis and South Africans would have been happier with their helicopters.

Herman said:

" ... South Africans limited their machines to coastal use. ... "

Click to expand...

Remember that much of South Africa is on a plateau. For example Johannesburg is 5,558 feet (1,700 meters) above sea level. Many helicopters struggle to hover out of ground effect at 5,000 feet ASL.
The South African Air Force did send Super Frelons to Angola, but Angola has a substantial plateau 5,900 feet ASL.

As @Herman said, not much to add. As far as the French were concerned, the Super Frelon was devoured
- by the Lynx for the Navy ASW mission
- and the Puma for the Army transport role.
Frack, I just checked the Puma production run on French Wiki: 1687 airframes from 1965 to 1987, when the Super Puma kicked in. That's... enormous.

I'm not completely convinced about the 2 engine Vs 3 engine argument above.
We have the AW/EH101 that flew and was first manufactured about 30 years after the Super Frelon.
It's in service with 13 countries, and is still in production.

China has basically continually developed the Super Frelon into a product that has eventuated in the same category as the AW/EH101.

I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that 2 Vs 3 engines is more economical, but there are other factors at play.

Dear Boys & Girls, was the Super Frelon ever tested with/flown with a fenestron?

Terry (Caravellarella)