Sikorsky flying crane projects

From Krila 6/1956.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    275.3 KB · Views: 231
From AW 1960,with small caption.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    50.1 KB · Views: 170
sorry it was the Siku toy bit that got me to the link, as I have the toy mentioned.
 
hesham said:
here is a Sikorsky DS-137 flying crane Project,appeared in two variants,one was with single main
rotor and the second was with two main rotor,who can collect the pieces.
Click to expand...

If someone could collect the pieces,and don't forget they were a
two variants,with the same front of fuselage.
 
Last edited:
Given how much weight the new "towed" artillery and tactical wheeled vehicles are sporting these days. probably going to need a super Sky Crane to move them around. But, what to give up?
 
From anther report from, Michigan University,

a clearer view to S-60.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    156.9 KB · Views: 134
From University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign project hummingbird 1961,
 

Attachments

  • 16.png
    16.png
    323.5 KB · Views: 124
  • 17.png
    17.png
    184.8 KB · Views: 132
From a NASA report about flying crane in 1963.
 

Attachments

  • 38.png
    38.png
    244.6 KB · Views: 150

Attachments

  • 12.png
    12.png
    285.8 KB · Views: 159
Last edited:
mcs said:
I would venture a guess and say there was a typo in Flying Review and that it should've stated it was a flying crane version of the S-61.

From looking at the drawing, the length appears to be closer to that of the S-61/H-3 as opposed to the S-60. The shape of the doghouse and the fact that it has a five blade tail rotor also appears to indicate that it was a S-61 derivative.

I've seen engineering data on the S-60. One of the documents dated prior to 1/62 illustrates a turbine version of the S-60 and the layout was identical to that of the S-64.

The S-60 still survives, albeit in many pieces, at the New England Air Museum:


http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0569663&WxsIERv=Fvxbefxl%20F-60%20Fxlpenar&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Fvxbefxl%20Nvepensg&QtODMg=Jvaqfbe%20Ybpxf%20%28Unegsbeq%20%2F%20Fcevatsvryq%29%20-%20Oenqyrl%20Vagreangvbany%20%28OQY%20%2F%20XOQY%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Pbaarpgvphg&ktODMp=Ncevy%2029%2C%202004&BP=1&WNEb25u=Qry%20Ynhturel&xsIERvdWdsY=A807&MgTUQtODMgKE=Pbpxcvg%20nern%20bs%20gur%20F-60%20va%20fgbentr%20ng%20gur%20Arj%20Ratynaq%20Nve%20Zhfrhz.%20Gur%20shfryntr%20vf%20nyfb%20va%20fgbentr.%20Guvf%20nvepensg%20jnf%20vaibyirq%20va%20fbzr%20glcr%20bs%20nppvqrag%20va%201961%20juvpu%20cerfhznoyl%20pnhfrq%20gur%20frcnengvba%20bs%20gur%20pbpxcvg%20sebz%20gur%20shfryntr.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=1033&NEb25uZWxs=2004-05-03%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&width=1500&height=1012&sok=JURER%20%20%28ZNGPU%20%28nvepensg%2Cnveyvar%2Ccynpr%2Ccubgb_qngr%2Cpbhagel%2Cerznex%2Ccubgbtencure%2Crznvy%2Clrne%2Cert%2Cnvepensg_trarevp%2Cpa%2Cpbqr%29%20NTNVAFG%20%28%27%2B%22F-60%22%27%20VA%20OBBYRNA%20ZBQR%29%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=1&prev_id=&next_id=0513311

One of these days, I need to contact the museum to see if I can get some close up photos of it.
Click to expand...
It was actually an H-37 derivative.
 
hesham said:
Hi,

The Sikorsky CH-53E as a high speed flying crane helicopter.
Click to expand...
Combined response:
Sentinel Chicken said:
Is that a real proposal or someone's kitbash?
Click to expand...
I believe it's a kitbash based on a helicopter from one of the "semi-realistic combat robot*" anime, probably either Full Metal Panic or Gasaraki. I want to say Gasaraki had a helicopter like that used by the bad guys, but it's been a while since I last watched either one.

* Meaning the main bots are on the order of 4-8m tall, not 14-18m like a Gundam.


yasotay said:
Given how much weight the new "towed" artillery and tactical wheeled vehicles are sporting these days. probably going to need a super Sky Crane to move them around. But, what to give up?
Click to expand...
? The M777 is pretty light, even with the long barrel. A King Stallion could lift one with the gun crew and 100 rounds of ammunition without trouble.

My suspicion is that if they do make a new Skycrane, we're going to see a minimal-cabin version of the King Stallion. Basically the Skycrane airframe but with King Stallion mechanicals.

I'm not entirely sure how much lighter you can really get the KS airframe. 74k MTOW internal load, and 35k of that is the internal load. So you're looking at structural and fuel weight of 39k. 15k of that combined weight is fuel, for a total structural weight of 24k. At the bare minimums, the gearbox assembly with the rotor hub and control components is some 12klbs, so I'm guesstimating that the minimal Skycrane style airframe is going to be some 18klbs, only about 6klbs lighter than the full cabin King Stallion.

Since the King Stallion can lift 36,000lbs externally, that would make for an 18% increase in external lift, but I'm not sure that the loss of flexibility would be worth the few dedicated airframes. I mean, the US only made and deployed 105 total Skycranes when funding was almost unlimited! IIRC it was 1 or 2 dozen to Germany, that many more to Vietnam, and all the rest stayed in the US.
 
The problem is that even the 53K, is designed for "ship to shore" distances (~100NM) with those significant weights. Because of this the USMC Littoral Regiments are being designed to have the smallest potential logistics requirement on the expectation that they will operate beyond the range of heavy lift. They are likely taking a page from the SOF reconnaissance doctrine with somewhat larger capability. I do not expect them to have any towed artillery or transport bigger than a dune buggy. I do not think they will lug M777 and ammo around. If they take a M777 into an area, they must also deliver a truck to carry people and ammo as well as tow the vehicle.
I do realize that 53K is air refuellable, but then you have to risk your KC-130 to fly very slow in contested areas. Even if the USMC picked up the Stingray, if it could operate at those low speeds they won't have enough of them to risk away from the strike packages off of the ships.
This problem is also facing the US Army who have nothing with range to operate over extended distances. This likely played a part in the FLRAA decision as I doubt that you could ever develop a helicopter that is as efficient as a turboprop airplane. The great CH-47 was not designed for this. All US Army helicopters were designed to operate in Europe with a large mature logistics base.
All of that said I am not sure that a new Sky Crane is the correct answer. If you have to have logistics hubs inside the range of tactical/operational artillery systems it will be at risk. I am sure there are creative ways to circumvent this challenge but you are expending a lot of resources to securely move resources.
The 53K is a great aircraft and a worthy successor to the 53E. I am not sure it still meetings the needs of the advanced battlefield.
 
yasotay said:
The problem is that even the 53K, is designed for "ship to shore" distances (~100NM) with those significant weights. Because of this the USMC Littoral Regiments are being designed to have the smallest potential logistics requirement on the expectation that they will operate beyond the range of heavy lift. They are likely taking a page from the SOF reconnaissance doctrine with somewhat larger capability. I do not expect them to have any towed artillery or transport bigger than a dune buggy. I do not think they will lug M777 and ammo around. If they take a M777 into an area, they must also deliver a truck to carry people and ammo as well as tow the vehicle.
Click to expand...
Which then turns the M777 into a two-helo lift. One hauling the gun, crew, and trailer full of ammo, the other hauling the Humvee or JLTV.

yasotay said:
I do realize that 53K is air refuellable, but then you have to risk your KC-130 to fly very slow in contested areas. Even if the USMC picked up the Stingray, if it could operate at those low speeds they won't have enough of them to risk away from the strike packages off of the ships.
This problem is also facing the US Army who have nothing with range to operate over extended distances. This likely played a part in the FLRAA decision as I doubt that you could ever develop a helicopter that is as efficient as a turboprop airplane. The great CH-47 was not designed for this. All US Army helicopters were designed to operate in Europe with a large mature logistics base.
All of that said I am not sure that a new Sky Crane is the correct answer. If you have to have logistics hubs inside the range of tactical/operational artillery systems it will be at risk. I am sure there are creative ways to circumvent this challenge but you are expending a lot of resources to securely move resources.
The 53K is a great aircraft and a worthy successor to the 53E. I am not sure it still meetings the needs of the advanced battlefield.
Click to expand...
Yup. And given Russian TBMs like Kinzhal, your logistics hubs are within range of "arty" systems if they're on the same continent.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom