Boeing Vertol alternate HLH proposals and other crane helicopters

boxkite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
12 July 2006
Messages
892
Reaction score
452
A Boeing-Vertol project for a future crane helicopter of 20-30 t payload (circa 1970). I'm interested in a model number.

SOURCE: German magazine "Der Flieger" 2-3/1970 (page 62)
 

Attachments

  • Boeing-Vertol design for crane helicopter.jpg
    Boeing-Vertol design for crane helicopter.jpg
    202 KB · Views: 1,420
mmmm, could it be a civilian derivative of the Boeing HLH-competion winner? Payload and configuration (apart cockpit position) are very similar. And the payload is the same, and the timeframe too... I have an artist impression and a two-views (with data) of the HLH if it interests to someone. Ah, and the Boeing Vertol HLH model numeber is 301.
 
Boeing HLH (CH-62) and the civil derivative
 

Attachments

  • xch62.jpg
    xch62.jpg
    273.8 KB · Views: 1,105
  • Boeing_301_HLH.jpg
    Boeing_301_HLH.jpg
    34 KB · Views: 1,003
So, the Boxkite Boeing-Vertol wasn't a direct civilian derivative of HLH... Anyway, as a gratuitous addition, the Sikorsky contender for the specification. It was veery much liked by the NavyOdd, but seems it hadn't a model number (I haven't be abble to find an hole in the S-xx progression till S-71, which was already from 1971). Perhaps it was a S-64something (G ????). Any idea you gurus?
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky_skycrane.jpg
    Sikorsky_skycrane.jpg
    25.7 KB · Views: 1,064
Dronte said:
Boeing HLH (CH-62) and the civil derivative

WAPJ had an interesting entry on the XCH-62 in a survey of Chinook variants.

It is interesting that the HLH program was (almost) revived under the Reagan administration, and a largely completed prototype survived for many years. I wonder when - or if - it was was broken up for scrap?
 
The destruction of the XCH-62 prototypes, that's one of the sad stories of the
last year, because it was scrapped at the end of 2005 (precise date not to hand
at the moment), with the explanation of the director of the Army Aviation Museum,
Mr. Maxham, that it "wasn't a significant aircraft and it isn't possible to preserve every
scrap of metal that at any time in the past belonged to an aircraft" :'(
With this argument, many aviation museums could be emptied at once !
 
Jemiba said:
The destruction of the XCH-62 prototypes, that's one of the sad stories of the
last year, because it was scrapped at the end of 2005 (precise date not to hand
at the moment), with the explanation of the director of the Army Aviation Museum,
Mr. Maxham, that it "wasn't a significant aircraft and it isn't possible to preserve every
scrap of metal that at any time in the past belonged to an aircraft" :'(
With this argument, many aviation museums could be emptied at once !

Wow! 2005!

I wonder if the XCH-62 was pitched to the Marine Corp - yet again - only to lose to the CH-53K?

In any event, the price of scrap aluminum is high, the XCH-62 was too large to be easily transported by road and Boeing doesn't need publicity for any failed program, even a long extinct one.

The great irony is that the XCH-62 might have been a good starting point for Eurocopters HTH proposal. Perhaps that is why this partially complete prototype survived for so long?
 
Still couldn't find the exact date, only that it was mid october, 2005, 10 days before
the 50th anniversary of Ft. Rucker. The XCH-62 was said to be in quite a poor state,
but AFAIK it wasn't offered to any other museum and any attempts, to safe it were
in vain. Questions about the fate, or about other possibilities got no answer.
One argument was, that it wasn't a real flying machine, but more of a mock-up.
It never flew, that's right, but it was a prototype, although some missing parts were
substituted by dummy parts.
Not really a honourable story for that museum, I think !
 
This photo seems to be of 2005 vintage:

Boeing%20HLH%201.JPG
 
- model 301 flying crane
 

Attachments

  • Boeing-Vertol-301.JPG
    Boeing-Vertol-301.JPG
    47.1 KB · Views: 617
CammNut said:
Here is another of the JHL contenders - Boeing's Advanced Tandem Rotor Helicopter, supposedly drawing heavily on the design of the XCH-62 Heavy Lift Helicopter, which was built but never flown and last year was scrapped by the US Army's aviation museum in Ft Rucker because it had deteriorated dangerously...

Just for information, the XCH-62 in the Fort Rucker museum was just a mock-up, not the real thing.
 
The destruction of the XCH-62 was mentioned quite in depth in one of the last years
issues of Vertiflite : It was emphasized, that it WASN'T a mock-up, but an imcomplete prototype.
Several missing parts were replaced with dummies, but the basic machine was real ..
And IMHO the whole affair of the destruction deserves a separate thread with the title:
"The silliest things in aviation history!" :mad:
 
It is correct that the ATRH draws from the XCH-62 program, mostly from the power train and other dynamic components.

Sadly I stood and watched as the XCH-62 went down under the bucket of a backhoe. The Contractor was good enough to let some of us intrepid souls venture out to collect the huge hooks and some of the data plates. The sad truth is that it went away as Ft. Rucker prepared for its 50th Anniversary and there was no money to fix it or move it. So it was scrapped for "area beautification" reasons. Then the leadership was shocked at the outrage it produced. Ironically this all happened while the JHL team was meeting less than a quarter mile away attempting to define the aircraft requirements.
 
Different configuration (exp in the engine arrangement) of the Sikorsky HLH submission, in this case with Army insignia. From a company adv appeared in AW&ST in August 1970.
 

Attachments

  • hlh.JPG
    hlh.JPG
    55 KB · Views: 503
TinWing said:
This photo seems to be of 2005 vintage:

Boeing%20HLH%201.JPG
i think i load all the pictures of the XCH-62 available on the net but i like to have detailed views or blueprints of it for making model. ;D
 
Alas all that is left is the hooks, sticks and grips and some data plates. Some intrepid souls walked through the wreckage while the demolishing contractor took a break. Ironically those intrepid souls were at Ft. Rucker to attend a meeting of the Joint Heavy Lift IPT.
 
Hi,

and here is the Boeing HLH (Heavy Lift Helicopter) project of
1970.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1970/1970%20-%200231.html
 

Attachments

  • Boeing HLH.JPG
    Boeing HLH.JPG
    15.3 KB · Views: 904
My next set of releases (in a week or so at: http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocsale.htm ) will include a number of Boeing Model 301 Heavy Lift Helicopter layout diagrams. The examples below are 1/10 full resolution.
 

Attachments

  • hlh1a.gif
    hlh1a.gif
    53.1 KB · Views: 702
  • hlh2a.gif
    hlh2a.gif
    28.8 KB · Views: 752
  • hlh3a.gif
    hlh3a.gif
    91.3 KB · Views: 678
  • hlh4a.gif
    hlh4a.gif
    38.5 KB · Views: 685
  • hlh5a.gif
    hlh5a.gif
    43.2 KB · Views: 737
That was a great project. I am still incredulous that the leadership at Ft. Rucker elected to destroy the prototype. All that is left now are some data plates and the hook. :'(
 
Orionblamblam said:
My next set of releases (in a week or so at: http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocsale.htm ) will include a number of Boeing Model 301 Heavy Lift Helicopter layout diagrams. The examples below are 1/10 full resolution.
When will be they available ?
i am very impatient
 
The HLH that was at the Fort Rucker museum was only a mock-up not a prototype. At the time I was there (2001) the museum had limited display space and they concentrated on aircraft that had a significance in US Army history, not the mock up of a aircraft they never operated. The mock up was stored in a fenced compound and had by 2005 deteriorated to the extend that it had to be demolished.
I ahve attached a photo I took in 2001.
 

Attachments

  • H-62 (Jos Heyman).jpg
    H-62 (Jos Heyman).jpg
    35.9 KB · Views: 510
IIRC we had this question before. I've never seen the HLH by myself, so I can just
rely on several sources. In Vertiflite, the publication of the American Helicopter
Society, it was said, that it wasn't just a mock-up, but in fact a prototype, although
in the meantime several components were removed or maybe never actually fitted.
So it wasn't a COMPLETE aircraft, but the "mock-up story" is said to have been just
an excuse by the museums management.
 
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/boeivert/xch-62.htm

I found this with google.
 
Jos Heyman said:
The HLH that was at the Fort Rucker museum was only a mock-up not a prototype. At the time I was there (2001) the museum had limited display space and they concentrated on aircraft that had a significance in US Army history, not the mock up of a aircraft they never operated. The mock up was stored in a fenced compound and had by 2005 deteriorated to the extend that it had to be demolished.
I ahve attached a photo I took in 2001.

You have the "official" story here.
 
boxkite said:
A Boeing-Vertol project for a future crane helicopter of 20-30 t payload. I'm interested in a model number.

SOURCE: German magazine "Der Flieger" 2-3/1970 (page 62)

The only known three engined helicopter project for the Boeing Vertol
was the Model-297,it was powered by three 3435 hp GE T64-GE-16s.
 
IIRC the airframe at Fort Rucker was neither a prototype nor a mock-up. It was a non-flying dynamic test article.
 
According to Vertiflite, winter 2005, there were the reasons, given by the director of the
museum of Army Aviation were as follows :
- "The contract for production was halted mid-way. It was never structurally completed.
It was never mechanically completed. It was never elctricall harnassed. It never flew."

The machine had rested in the open for quite long and suffered from corrosion, so there
were concerns, about the structural integrity and th availability of funds for preservation.
And it was not clear, how to move it away from its place (A flying crane operator was asked,
but couldn't do the job, at least not in time. And time was critical, as the date of the 50th
anniversary celebrations of Ft.Rucker couldn't be postponed of course.
And to show the deteriorated remains to the public, wouldn't have been good for the image,
so it was better to destroy the whole thing. :mad:

So, if it was, or was not a "real aircraft", still is open to definition, but I think, not the fact, that it
should have been kept preserved.
 

Attachments

  • XCH-62.JPG
    XCH-62.JPG
    37.9 KB · Views: 440
Jemiba said:
According to Vertiflite, winter 2005, there were the reasons, given by the director of the
museum of Army Aviation were as follows :
- "The contract for production was halted mid-way. It was never structurally completed.
It was never mechanically completed. It was never elctricall harnassed. It never flew."

The machine had rested in the open for quite long and suffered from corrosion, so there
were concerns, about the structural integrity and th availability of funds for preservation.
And it was not clear, how to move it away from its place (A flying crane operator was asked,
but couldn't do the job, at least not in time. And time was critical, as the date of the 50th
anniversary celebrations of Ft.Rucker couldn't be postponed of course.
And to show the deteriorated remains to the public, wouldn't have been good for the image,
so it was better to destroy the whole thing. :mad:

So, if it was, or was not a "real aircraft", still is open to definition, but I think, not the fact, that it
should have been kept preserved.

In the wake of the cancellation of the Commanche and the Crusader, the Army didn't need yet another reminder of a failed program. Boeing most certainly didn't want to attract any more negative media attention. A big, incomplete fuselage would have been a good starting point for yet another public accountability news story, something neither the miltary or the defense industry either wanted or needed. Blame the media.

If the incomplete fuselage had been siting in the Arizona desert, the story might have been different. As it was, it seems likely that there were indeed serious preservation issues due to outdoor storage in a damp climate with extreme temperature changes. This big embarrassing fuselage was sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
"Blame the media"

Well, you're probably right, public relation is everything today.
But I think, Mr.Steve Maxham, director of the Museum, should attend a
course in this serious business. To tell the public about the difficulties of
preserving an old, corroded airframe is one thing, to say, that "preserving
every scrap of metal that at any time in the past belonged to an aircraft
isn't realistic", is lacking a bit of diplomacy, I think. ;)
 
While no friend to the ego's that reside at the Army Aviation Museum, I have to admit they are very cash strapped to maintain aircraft and have done as well as could be expected with some of the outdoor display aircraft (see my pictures of the Ryan XV-5). While I very much disagree with what I believe was a hasty decision I can appreciate the logistics of trying to find a way to hide the deteriorated airframe.

Tin Wing I am not sure how an ancient effort would have become, "another public accountability news story, something neither the military or the defense industry either wanted or needed." It was such an old effort I do not see how it could have become a PR fiasco for the Army, at least no more than any other military requirement that met an untimely financial death.
 
"While I very much disagree with what I believe was a hasty decision I can appreciate the logistics of trying to find a way to hide the deteriorated airframe."

Well, I think, there's a lot of truth in it. We probably should acknowledge, that we, the aircraft/
aviation enthusiasts, are just quite a small percentage of all people, and of all taxpayers. And
it may really be hard to explain to a one of the "common people", why thousands of $/€ were
spend for preserving something, that never left the ground. Who of us would be willing to pay
for preserving, say, a house, that was never finished, looks ugly, but was designed by a famous
architect (just for example) ?
 
yasotay said:
Tin Wing I am not sure how an ancient effort would have become, "another public accountability news story, something neither the military or the defense industry either wanted or needed." It was such an old effort I do not see how it could have become a PR fiasco for the Army, at least no more than any other military requirement that met an untimely financial death.

You forget that this was shortly after the Comanche was canceled, during a time of great political drama, much of which had nothing to do with aviation - I feel there is no need to dredge up politics, so enough said. It was not in the interest of the Army, or Boeing, to restore a big, poorly conserved fuselage
 
Indeed it is all academic now. At least some of the data-plates and the giant hook was saved by intrepid souls who begged the contractor to give them half an hour to recover them from the destruction.
 
sferrin said:
Looks like the offspring of a Mi-10 and a Chinook.
More like the offspring of an angry gorilla and robocop
 
Back
Top Bottom