• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Sikorsky S-61 prototypes and projects

Caravellarella

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
89
Dear Boys and Girls, here is a picture with a caption in French of what I believe to be the Sikorsky S-61N full-size mock-up brought to the 1959 Paris Salon; it shows an aerodynamic saucer-shaped fairing covering the main rotor hub. The accompanying article describes the Sikorsky S-61N as being powered by three T-58 engines (like the Sud Aviation SE.3200 Frelon); is this correct for the S-61N design at this stage of development?

The picture comes from the 20th June 1959 issue of Les Ailes......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Attachments

Caravellarella

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
89
Stargazer2006 said:
Slightly enhanced... (wish I could do better... :-[)
Dear Stéphane, here is the same picture without Chicago Helciopter Airways titles added above the cheatline......

http://www.aerofiles.com/sik-s61n.jpg

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

HeavyG

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
I got to fly in one these bad boys when I left my FOB for the long trip back home. Looks pretty much like the one in the picture except without the rotor hub fairing and the inclusion of a thimble-shaped radome on the nose.
 

RavenOne

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
181
Reaction score
46
Has anyone got any pics of the H-3 gunship proposal and H-2 Tomahawk?

Cheers
 

RavenOne

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
181
Reaction score
46
frank,


There was a proper S-61 gunship proposed as part of the AAFSS not just the S-67. According to Harding's US Army Aviation book, the fly off was at Edwards AFB with the H-2, the H-3 gunship etc etc

Cheers
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
6
There was a proper S-61 gunship...
I've sen an image of this, but I'm damned if I can find it!
ISTR it was an H-3 without the hull bottom, and an
undernose turret with a MG of some sort...
I know it's out there, but where??




cheers,
Robin.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
75
Been trying to locate that one but I can't remember ever seeing it, myself. :-\
 

Kiltonge

Greetings Earthling
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
203
Reaction score
2
Did Westland also obtain rights to manufacture the S-61R or just the boat-hulled 61D?

Just wondering if the 61R was ever proposed for UK requirements.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
101
Kiltonge said:
Did Westland also obtain rights to manufacture the S-61R or just the boat-hulled 61D?

Just wondering if the 61R was ever proposed for UK requirements.
I believe they only licensed the baseline S-61; several sources say Augusta was the only foreign licencee for the S-61R. If Westland did have an S-61R license, I'd think they'd have offered that instead of developing the Commando for troop lift.
 

Kiltonge

Greetings Earthling
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
203
Reaction score
2
Cheers TomS. Yes, the Commando was the oddity that made me wonder.

As a tangent, found this in Flight whilst digging for info:

The [Westland] Wiltshire, also to fly this year [1960], will be an anglicised Sikorsky S-61 with twin [Napier] Gazelles.
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1960/1960%20-%200065.PDF

There is a January 1960 reference to a triple-Gnome engined S-61 proposal; that shadows a Sikorsky offering for a triple-T58 installation for hot-and-high.
 

famvburg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
321
Reaction score
3
Weren't all of the S-61s boat-hulled?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
101
famvburg said:
Weren't all of the S-61s boat-hulled?

I guess it depends on how you define a boat hull. The S-61R had the rear ramp and a flatter, squared-off aft hull, rather than a tapered boat-tail as in the original design (It also did away wiht the outriggers in favor of sponsons, and switched up the landing gear arrangement from a tail-drager to a tricycle arrangement). The forward end did retain that boat-like stemline, though. And the R was still able to water-land because the hull was still watertight.
 

famvburg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
321
Reaction score
3
I was always under the impression that even the Jolly Green Giant was amphibious. So it isn't?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
101
famvburg said:
I was always under the impression that even the Jolly Green Giant was amphibious. So it isn't?

That's not what I said. The S-61R/HH-3E could land on water -- the hull was waterproof and would float. But if you look at the original S-61, that hull has a v-shaped bottom with a distinct keel and chines where the bottom meet the sides. That's the boat hull, which makes for better stability and on water, and probably better take-off characteristics because it would unstick more cleanly (like a flying boat). The S61R has a flat bottom and a more rounded transition from the bottom to the hull sides, which made it less suited for water operations.


Of course, in practice, neither type did water landings very often so the difference isn't all that crucial.
 

Kiltonge

Greetings Earthling
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
203
Reaction score
2
I assume that much of Sikorsky's hydrodynamic research into the boat-hull was licensed to Sud Aviation along with the gearbox and rotors when developing the Super Frelon.

The keel and chine shapes are pretty much identical, just scaled-up.
 

Kiltonge

Greetings Earthling
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
203
Reaction score
2
China has opened preliminary talks with Sikorsky which may lead to the
placing of an order for S-61Ns. It is reported that although China might
have a military application for the helicopters they would be sold by
Sikorsky in standard civil S-61N form.
The company is reported by Reuter to be negotiating also with Romania
which is understood to be interested in licence-production of the S-61N.
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1974/1974%20-%200173.PDF
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,767
Reaction score
813
New info for me,thank you Kiltonge.
 

mil

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
132
Reaction score
15
Why Sikorsky didn't use the Rotoprop system tested for S-61 by later helicopters.
 

Attachments

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
301
Reaction score
7
Back in 1974, China May have been negotiating to build S-61s, but they never built any Sikorskys. Instead China bought licenses to build several French helicopters: Dauphin, Super Frelon, etc.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
301
Reaction score
7
Yes, the Westland Commando always looked odd as a troop-carrier! The sill of the cargo door is waist-high on Akan standing beside it! How did fully-equipped Royal Marine Commandos climb on board? Consider that during the Afghan War, RMC wore 70 pounds of a armour, plus weapons, plus ammunition, plus water, etc. for one-day foot patrols!
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,991
Reaction score
145
mil said:
Why Sikorsky didn't use the Rotoprop system tested for S-61 by later helicopters.
That system to my opinion was just a swivelling tail rotor, still using the same drivetrain,
as the conventional tail rotor. So it would have been limited to a relatively low power,
definitely not comparable to the pusher prop à la X2. And in the hover and when flying
at lower speeds, it still would have needed the tail rotor. And a swivelling gear for
really high power output in the extreme tail probably would be a heavy in a position,
where it shouldn't be.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
301
Reaction score
7
The West German Navy bought 21 S-61s for search and rescue. I suspect that they bought them from Westland.
Meanwhile, the West German Army bought (twin-engined) Sikorsky CH-53s to haul soldiers. Some German CH-53s hauled NATO soldiers during recent fighting in Afghanistan.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,767
Reaction score
813
mil said:
Why Sikorsky didn't use the Rotoprop system tested for S-61 by later helicopters.

Nice find Mil.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
101
riggerrob said:
The West German Navy bought 21 S-61s for search and rescue. I suspect that they bought them from Westland.
Yes, the German Sea Kings were Westland Sea King Mk. 41 models. There were actually 22 ordered initially.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
301
Reaction score
7
Dear Tsr Joe,
Your photo looks like the standard S-61 fuselage length.
Sikorsky built S-61L to carry passengers. Most worked hauling crews to off-shore oil rigs. They were eventually replaced by Super Pumas and now by Sikorsky S-92.
All the extra length is in the forward fuselage between the engines and cockpit.
Ironically, a few S-61L have had the fuselage extension removed o reduce weight as they are now working at heli-logging.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
116
They probably just painted up a standard Sea King model for promotional purposes, perhaps they didn't have any correct S.61N promotional models at the time?
 
Top