Sikorsky Flying Cranes S-60 to S-64

[500 Fan]

The previously-mentioned restoration seems to be well under-way. It is good to see a unique helicopter like this being saved.

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=39221


500 Fan.

 

[Stargazer]

Still a long, long way to go, but it's nice to see the project under way.

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky civilian crane helicopter brochure on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SIKORSKY-S-60-S-64-SKYCRANE-INFORMATION-HELICOPTER-BROCHURE-ALL-COLOR/331071744456?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D18580%26meid%3D2896090394108417755%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D8476%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D331071070141%26

 

[Stargazer]

Link provided doesn't work. Please fix. Thanks.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Works for me

 

[Stargazer]

Works for me

Clicking on the hyperlink in Triton's message takes me straight to THIS page...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Error?errid=17&item=331071744456

 

[Grey Havoc]

It worked for me just now. What browser were you using?

 

[circle-5]

It's not a browser issue, it's a country issue. eBay has caved into numerous local (and vocal) groups, to prevent buyers in certain countries from even seeing items that may be considered offensive by even the tiniest of minorities. These include historical WWII items (not just Nazi) in France and Germany, female bare breast illustrations in now-familiar religious countries, gun parts in others, etc. The list is long and the censorship method is crude (the word "WWII" in the title will typically ban an item from being seen in France.)

If someone in France wants to see this listing, they should change their main language preference to American English and reboot, because eBay always checks this operating system setting before allowing the bidder to not be offended. If that doesn't work, there may be other methods of censorship recently added by eBay. eBay employs an army of lawyers, who need to justify their existence, so this will only get worse.

 

[Triton]

Print of Sikorsky S-60 Crane found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-11-X-14-Color-Poster-Sikorsky-S-60-Crane-Helicopter-/231370838095?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35dec6d04f

 

[Triton]

Photograph of Sikorsky S-60 found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1960-Press-Photo-of-a-Sikorsky-S-60-Helicopter-/231392535204?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item35e011e2a4

 

[hesham]

Here is an early S-60 concept Model.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19561210/14/2

 

[hesham]

Hi,

here is early sketch to Sikorsky S-60 helicopter.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19591102/23/2

 

[fightingirish]

Sources:

• FLUG REVUE 01/2016
• Klassiker der Luftfahrt - Sikorsky S-60

 

[mil]

S-60

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky S-64B concept found on eBay.

Source:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-SIKORSKY-EXPERIMENTAL-CONCEPT-HELICOPTER-PHOTO-OF-DRAWING/263501621325?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D49917%26meid%3D5799db319d92418b8a81982076488bfc%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D5%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D263501594683%26itm%3D263501621325&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851

 

[Boxman]

Here's some British Pathe newsreel footage of the Sikorsky S-60 in action, carrying an automobile.

YouTube - British Pathé : "News in Flashes - USA - HELICOPTER CARRIES CAR TO SOLVE TRAFFIC PROBLEM" (1959)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N69UlHMw6vA

 

[yasotay]

And now the Erickson S-64F+

 

[Boombabb2]

On a related note, the restoration of the S-60 seems to be going well.

1958 Sikorsky S-60 “Flying Crane” | CT Air&Space Center

www.ctairandspace.org

 

[isayyo2]

A bit more info on the S-61F+

The S-64F+ is currently in the product development stage, and no projected date has been announced.

S-64F+ Air Crane Helicopter | Erickson Incorporated

Introducing the new S-64F+ Air Crane® helicopter, combining time-tested features with game-changing innovations and upgrades. Learn more.

ericksoninc.com

https://fireaviation.com/2021/12/03/erickson-plans-major-upgrades-for-the-s-64-air-crane-helicopter/

Sidenote to the Mods, would it make sense to merge these three topic into one thread?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sikorsky-flying-cranes-s-60-to-s-64.11408/
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sikorsky-flying-crane-projects.7783/
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ghes-th-55-for-bundeswehr-heersflieger.13963/

 

[jsport]

And now the Erickson S-64F+
View attachment 651309

It is embarassing that US/NATO can not come w/ a new future large crane helicopter requirement and competion. A few S-64F+ could be purchased as Proof of Concept for a new larger craft.

 

[yasotay]

Biggest challenge that Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM. I doubt they have the personnel needed to wade through the ten miles of bureaucratic bumpf that would be thrown at them to complete prior to getting funding for "a few S-64F". Need several Congressional delegations to support as well.

Perhaps sad, but it is the way of things in liberal western democracy these days.

I do note that they are proposing to use Sikorsky Matrix. That means Lockheed Martin. That is a potential means forward.

 

[riggerrob]

Biggest challenge that Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM. I doubt they have the personnel needed to wade through the ten miles of bureaucratic bumpf that would be thrown at them to complete prior to getting funding for "a few S-64F". Need several Congressional delegations to support as well.

Perhaps sad, but it is the way of things in liberal western democracy these days.

I do note that they are proposing to use Sikorsky Matrix. That means Lockheed Martin. That is a potential means forward.

I disagree.
Consider this proposal from the perspective of VIKING in Canada. VIKING has been overhauling and re-building deHavilland of Canada floatplanes for longer than most people can remember. Few of Harbour Air's DHC airplanes have many original components remaining after being re-built a dozen or more times. They have Supplementary Type Certificates for a variety of modifications and Parts Manufacturing Authority for all the high-wear components. By the time they bought the Type Certificates from Bombardier/DHC, they could almost build a DHC airplane from scratch. When they bought the Type Certificate, VIKING inherited hundreds of form blocks, allowing them to build all DHC components on original tooling. From there it was a simple (paperwork exercise) to combine all those STCs, PMAs and TCs into new-production DHC-6-400 Twin Otters.
With Erickson's decades long experience in over-hauling and upgrading Sikorsky Sky Cranes, it is more a paperwork exercise to start new production. I think they are already building new Skycranes for civilian contracts.

 

[jsport]

Biggest challenge that Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM. I doubt they have the personnel needed to wade through the ten miles of bureaucratic bumpf that would be thrown at them to complete prior to getting funding for "a few S-64F". Need several Congressional delegations to support as well.

Perhaps sad, but it is the way of things in liberal western democracy these days.

I do note that they are proposing to use Sikorsky Matrix. That means Lockheed Martin. That is a potential means forward.

One could hope a European country worried about forest fires (unfortunately France wont) would motivate LM to proceed, but yes unlikely. A wild chance for EADS/LM collaboration, potentially on a HLH in general. Modules make best. :}

 

[yasotay]

Biggest challenge that Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM. I doubt they have the personnel needed to wade through the ten miles of bureaucratic bumpf that would be thrown at them to complete prior to getting funding for "a few S-64F". Need several Congressional delegations to support as well.

Perhaps sad, but it is the way of things in liberal western democracy these days.

I do note that they are proposing to use Sikorsky Matrix. That means Lockheed Martin. That is a potential means forward.

I disagree.
Consider this proposal from the perspective of VIKING in Canada. VIKING has been overhauling and re-building deHavilland of Canada floatplanes for longer than most people can remember. Few of Harbour Air's DHC airplanes have many original components remaining after being re-built a dozen or more times. They have Supplementary Type Certificates for a variety of modifications and Parts Manufacturing Authority for all the high-wear components. By the time they bought the Type Certificates from Bombardier/DHC, they could almost build a DHC airplane from scratch. When they bought the Type Certificate, VIKING inherited hundreds of form blocks, allowing them to build all DHC components on original tooling. From there it was a simple (paperwork exercise) to combine all those STCs, PMAs and TCs into new-production DHC-6-400 Twin Otters.
With Erickson's decades long experience in over-hauling and upgrading Sikorsky Sky Cranes, it is more a paperwork exercise to start new production. I think they are already building new Skycranes for civilian contracts.

Perhaps you are right. With Erickson already building that is a huge step forward. My comment was mostly focused at military use. However, at the risk of sounding trite (which I am certainly not trying to be), the experience of building civil aircraft in Canada, is not the same misadventure of selling H-64+ to the United States Department of Defense, not to mention the United States Army that would have to cut other programs to fund/build yet another helicopter type. Unlike the other services, the Army sees flying machines as an exceedingly expensive necessary evil.
No doubt that the use of the H-64+ for civil forest fire operations will necessitate a requirement for more zero time aircraft.

 

[jsport]

generally, dense european urban areas would appear to be more threatened than US areas as US urbanization is a bit more spread. The Europeans, therefore, they should be more motivated to develop and or buy these creatures. Isnt last ditch, precision firefighting a thing?

 

[riggerrob]

Biggest challenge that Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM. I doubt they have the personnel needed to wade through the ten miles of bureaucratic bumpf that would be thrown at them to complete prior to getting funding for "a few S-64F". Need several Congressional delegations to support as well.

Perhaps sad, but it is the way of things in liberal western democracy these days.

I do note that they are proposing to use Sikorsky Matrix. That means Lockheed Martin. That is a potential means forward.

I disagree.
Consider this proposal from the perspective of VIKING in Canada. VIKING has been overhauling and re-building deHavilland of Canada floatplanes for longer than most people can remember. Few of Harbour Air's DHC airplanes have many original components remaining after being re-built a dozen or more times. They have Supplementary Type Certificates for a variety of modifications and Parts Manufacturing Authority for all the high-wear components. By the time they bought the Type Certificates from Bombardier/DHC, they could almost build a DHC airplane from scratch. When they bought the Type Certificate, VIKING inherited hundreds of form blocks, allowing them to build all DHC components on original tooling. From there it was a simple (paperwork exercise) to combine all those STCs, PMAs and TCs into new-production DHC-6-400 Twin Otters.
With Erickson's decades long experience in over-hauling and upgrading Sikorsky Sky Cranes, it is more a paperwork exercise to start new production. I think they are already building new Skycranes for civilian contracts.

Perhaps you are right. With Erickson already building that is a huge step forward. My comment was mostly focused at military use. However, at the risk of sounding trite (which I am certainly not trying to be), the experience of building civil aircraft in Canada, is not the same misadventure of selling H-64+ to the United States Department of Defense, not to mention the United States Army that would have to cut other programs to fund/build yet another helicopter type. Unlike the other services, the Army sees flying machines as an exceedingly expensive necessary evil.
No doubt that the use of the H-64+ for civil forest fire operations will necessitate a requirement for more zero time aircraft.

Perhaps new-production Skycranes should go directly to state National Guard regiments. Consider that the last US Army Skycranes were operated by units like the Nevada Army Reserve or National Guard. State National Guard understand the local fire-fighting role far better than the Pentagon. Many states would cheerfully blur the defense and local disaster relief/fire-fighting roles with the state governor ordering state National Guard squadrons to devote "X" number of hours per year to fire-fighting duties.

 

[yasotay]

I agree that is the most likely spot for an H-64+ platform, and that the reasoning is practical. While the political clout of the U.S. Army National Guard is very impressive, without mark ups to the budget something comes off. It would likely require the loss of other platforms. The NG does not have AH-64 battalions because of their warfighting capability. They have them because there are ~30 more permeant positions per unit than say a UH-60 battalion. So if there are not at least an equal number of positions, it might not be the shoe-in that practical reasoning dictates.

 

[isayyo2]

Erickson would have is the need to team with an OEM

I believe Erickson is the legal OEM now, since they purchase the type certificate in the 90s. Though the legal hurdles are not my forte and I would be happy to be corrected.

A partnership with say Boeing and Honeywell with the uprated T55s and the new gearbox from the Block II CH-47F sounds like a winning combination.

 

[yasotay]

If the advertisement is correct they, Erickson, are already working with Lockheed Martin, through the Sikorsky Matrix electronics. Not to mention Sikorsky does have some background with S-64.