WAPJ had an interesting entry on the XCH-62 in a survey of Chinook variants.Dronte said:Boeing HLH (CH-62) and the civil derivative
Wow! 2005!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 !
Just for information, the XCH-62 in the Fort Rucker museum was just a mock-up, not the real thing.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...
When will be they available ?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.
Sometime after the Ebay sale with the HLH drawings is complete: http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/dynascottcador said:When will be they available ?
i am very impatient
You have the "official" story here.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.
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.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.
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.
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 fuselageyasotay 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.
Handle / proxy Url: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA085290This report summarizes the Heavy Lift Helicopter (HLH) Prototype program. The program was designed to demonstrate, in the actual flight environment, the capabilities of HLH components previously developed by Boeing Vertol under the Advanced Technology Components (ATC) effort. Design, fabrication, and assembly of one prototype HLH was 90 percent completed. An advanced aluminum honeycomb airframe, landing gear, and subsystems not included in the ATC effort were designed and fabricated. Limited laboratory tests were conducted to assure airworthiness of the prototype aircraft. Mockups were constructed of the crew compartment and aft area. A description of the aircraft, discussion of the tests conducted, and weight and performance data are presented. A list of references containing detailed documentation of the program is appended.
Handle / proxy Url: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA051348The Heavy Lift Helicopter Advanced Technology Component (ATC) development program was conducted by the Boeing Vertol Company for the U.S. Army from July 1971 through July 1975. As a part of this program, an advanced rotor hub and upper controls system design was developed and demonstrated to be satisfactory for application to the XCH-62 Prototype HLH. The ATC hub and upper control component development/demonstration activities included the flap/lag pitch elastomeric bearing, frequency selective lag damper, and shear bearing development efforts; manufacturing techniques development; fretting inhibitor evaluation; safe-life, fail-safe, and endurance testing of major hub and upper control components; whirl tower tests; and integrated rotor-drive system tests.