World Records Time to Altitude CH-54A Tarhe

[wrench1]

"A third U.S. Army aviator involved in the record attempts was Major James H. Goodloe, as was a Sikorsky test pilot, John J. Dixon."

Is that just a coincidence or is that a typo and we have a record holder in our midst?

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/30-december-1968/

[SASless]

Brother Dixson has a very interesting life story....which I certainly hope appears in Book form one day soon!

When you combine that of Nick Lappos and some others that attend here....there is a treasure trove of stories that need to part of our informal history.

[JohnDixson]

Not a record holder. Perhaps, “ a facilitator “ might be more accurate. This was the second set of altitude records achieved by the CH-54. We had upgraded JFTD12A-4A engines with an additional 500 ship each. SA was to perform a short flight test in advance, due to:

1. Installation of bootstrap pressurized flight control hydraulics ( the CH-54A had basically the H-37’s hydraulic system, which was unpressurized and vented to atmosphere. The estimated altitudes to be achieved raised the possibility of pump cavitation, and this solution addressed that issue and needed a short but thorough look-see.
2. P&W had concerns re the compressor section going trans-sonic at the in-flight temperatures expected, and produced a paper chart with temperature corrected N1 limits, to be treated as superseding the other engine/transmission limits. Another thing to pay attention to.
3. The altitudes were smack in the middle of some of the airline descent routes into KJFK and we had done some coordination with NY Center over on Long Island, as this was VERY controlled airspace and wanted to ensure this part of the plan worked.

On the first check flight, I flew with Charlie Reine, and we had a calculated climb profile which specified a 40 KIAS climb speed, which accounted for a couple of things among them being the pitot tube angular error. Promptlyupon applying max power to climb, we found that the high rate of climb rendered the 40 KIAS approach unplayable, and in fact after trying several other “ indicated “ speeds, we gave up on that approach and continued the climb simply setting a normal pitch attitude for climb ( the airspeed indicator read zero ). Decided to end this flight and re-evaluate the climb solution.

Prior to the next flight, the US Army pilots arrived and it was decided that CW-4 Jim Ervin would fly with me. meanwhile, we got a best guess attitude from the flight test and aero branch troops re a best attitude to fly for the climb, and armed with that, our clipboard N1 limit chart oxygen masks, parachutes etc, off we went. The climb attitude ( cannot recall that value ) seemed to work well as the time to 10k ft was well ahead of the record so we kept on going, with the intent to get to a service ceiling ( 100 rpm climb ). However, along the way a few events took place:

1. The large floodlight that was installed so as to allow video recording of the instrument panel exploded somewhere around 20,000 ft. It was mounted on the aft cockpit bulkhead and the glass splinters got down both Jim’s and my necks. Best we could do was not move very much.
2. Getting close to 30,000 ft the N2 actuator on one of the engines ( the way you matched torque on that aircraft ) froze, which had the impact of not getting all the power out of that engine.
3. Finally, we had one of the hydraulic systems overpressurize ( as I recall, the A model Crane had one at 2000psi and one at either 1500 or 3000. I am pretty sure it was the 2000 system that went to 3000psi, raising the distinct probability of quite increased fluid temperature. This was Mil 5606 and flammable, so this was the end of the flight. We had reached somewhere between 33 and 34000.

BTW, the story re the airliner is true and occurred on this flight. It was an Air Canada pilot who made the comment.

Anyway, we fixed these problems and the US Army took over and did a masterful job of achieving all the records that were in the plan. ( there was yet a third record series of flights flown by Army pilots at Stratford in 1972, utilizing a B-model Crane with the JFTD12A-5 engines, and they too achieved their goals ).

CW-4 Jim Ervin made a number of friends during his short sojourn at Sikorsky, and we were very sad to receive the news some years later, that Jim had lost his life flying a commercial S-64E in Alaska. A good pilot and a gentleman.

[Sikpilot]

BTW, the story re the airliner is true and occurred on this flight. It was an Air Canada pilot who made the comment.



Well now you gotta tell the airliner story......please

[[email protected]]

Well now you gotta tell the airliner story......please it's in the link in the first post:ok:

[Mast Bumper]

The CH54/S64 is a very impressive helicopter in many regards.

[etudiant]

The CH54/S64 is a very impressive helicopter in many regards.

Yet it did not stay in the Army inventory and was not picked up elsewhere. Presumably it was too specialized or too costly to sustain. One wonders whether an updated version with modern engines, systems and rotor blades would be more compelling.

[wrench1]

Not a record holder.
Too cool. But close enough in my book. I've never thought of it much, but I think SAS is right--this unique history should be documented. These are the types of stories I enjoy reading the most. And your personal comments made the story even more intriguing.

Come to think of it, it might be rather fun and interesting to personally transcribe these narratives. I've been known to dabble in public writing so if you are interested drop me a PM.

"TARHE TO SUPERHAWK: Tales of the Test Pilot" ... seems to have a nice ring to it.

W1

[SASless]

Why the Army did not go to the CH-53D instead of the Crane beats me....as it would have been far more useful.

The Crane was a Helicopter looking for a mission and once it was decided NOT to use the People Pods....or the Hospital Pods....and stick to it just being a crane.....the later model Chinooks proved far more useful.

[stilton]

Why the Army did not go to the CH-53D instead of the Crane beats me....as it would have been far more useful.

The Crane was a Helicopter looking for a mission and once it was decided NOT to use the People Pods....or the Hospital Pods....and stick to it just being a crane.....the later model Chinooks proved far more useful.



The first time I saw this helicopter with its system of interchangeable pods I thought it was a great idea, apparently not, what was the problem?

[SASless]

Brother Dixson might be able to tell us of that.

My guess is the original Pods did not allow for the carriage of underslung loads.

The Pods were re-designed so that could be done but the Army did not purchase any of the improved Pods.

The Chinook was designed (as was the CH-53) to be able to use its cargo hook while at the same time carrying passengers and other internal cargo.

Thus, making it far more effective in combat operations.

The CH-54 then reverted to "heavy lifts".

The early A Model Chinooks could not lift the standard 155mm Howitzer which the crane could handle.

The 105MM Howitzers were easily carried by the Chinook....to include the Gun Crew internally and what was called an A-22 Bag of Projectiles fuzes, and. powder for the Gun.

Later models of the Chinook were able to lift the improved 155's that were much lighter than the originals.

An example......While waiting for access to a refueling point at a place called Tay Ninh.....we learned of a stripped down M-113 ACAV that was stuck just outside the Perimeter....that had struck a large Mine and had been disabled.

It was waiting for a CH-54 to arrive to lift it a short distance into a secure area inside the perimeter.

As we were down to about 20 minutes of fuel...and were flying a CH-47A with upgraded engines....we decided to give it a try so we could "show up" the Crane guys.

It was a max weight lift....but one done with no problem....lift to a hover....move forward a couple of hundred yards....and set it down.

We did the lift and went on about our business.

I suppose we could have gotten word back to the Crane Unit but knowing upon their arrival they would be making inquiries all around about just where this stranded ACAV was.....to be told "Oh...never mind...some Chinook has already moved that!" would be a proper finger in their eye!

My recollection of the Crane Units is they were Prima Donna's and seemed to be a bunch of whiners.....always complaining their loads were too heavy....too light....not rigged correctly....and sorry but we must be off back home as it is Steak night and we do not wish to be late for dinner.

[Droop Snoot]

Too cool. But close enough in my book. I've never thought of it much, but I think SAS is right--this unique history should be documented. These are the types of stories I enjoy reading the most. And your personal comments made the story even more intriguing.

Come to think of it, it might be rather fun and interesting to personally transcribe these narratives. I've been known to dabble in public writing so if you are interested drop me a PM.

"TARHE TO SUPERHAWK: Tales of the Test Pilot" ... seems to have a nice ring to it.

W1

You're articulating what many of us have been thinking.:D

His PPRuNe posts alone would provide plenty of source material, a lot of bricks just needing a bit of mortar.

[Bksmithca]

Yet it did not stay in the Army inventory and was not picked up elsewhere. Presumably it was too specialized or too costly to sustain. One wonders whether an updated version with modern engines, systems and rotor blades would be more compelling.

Etudiant

Have a look at Erickson and the SkyCrane they originally purchased from the US Gov't and now produce inhouse. It is a limited market but Erickson has made it work.

[Fareastdriver]

Have you ever wondered why the Super Frelon, being a French design, has a rotor that rotates anti-clockwise from above as opposed to the normal clockwise, it uses the S64 rotor head. I found this out in 1977 at Marignane where there was a line up of Chinese Navy machines awaiting approval by the White House before they could be exported.

[Good Vibs]

Yes, that's why you need two sets of tools for the Super Frelon. Both metric and Inches.:ok:

[Droop Snoot]

Have you ever wondered why the Super Frelon, being a French design, has a rotor that rotates anti-clockwise from above as opposed to the normal clockwise, it uses the S64 rotor head. I found this out in 1977 at Marignane where there was a line up of Chinese Navy machines awaiting approval by the White House before they could be exported.

I thought the main rotor system was derived from the S-61. It has a 62' rotor diameter, same as S-61, but has one additional blade.

[megan]

My recollection of the Crane Units is they were Prima Donna's and seemed to be a bunch of whiners.....always complaining their loads were too heavy....too light....not rigged correctly....and sorry but we must be off back home as it is Steak night and we do not wish to be late for dinnerToo much fraternisation with the Air Force SAS? Steak in the US Army? Never saw any of that.

[Pilot DAR]

Thanks John Dixon for the story, these tales are great to hear!

SASless said:
My recollection of the Crane Units is they were Prima Donna's and seemed to be a bunch of whiners.....always complaining their loads were too heavy....too light....not rigged correctly....

Would that be because the CH-54 pilots could see the load, where the CH-47 pilots were flying on blind faith?

Perhaps this is a good place for me to ask about the flight controls for the rearward facing pilot: I presume that pilot had a full set of flight controls, so as to be able to solely fly the helicopter form that position? Were those flight controls oriented backward too? Or did the rearward facing pilot have to think backwards as he maneuvered the helicopter?

[cavuman1]

A repost from Spectators Balcony in January, 2018:

SKYCRANE and the STATUE of FREEDOM

In May of 1993 my then-wife, three-year-old daughter, and myself attended this event in person. A crowd of ~ 3,000 watched from the periphery of the Capitol's parking lot as Sikorsky's largest "frantic palm tree" removed the Statue of Armed Freedom from her perch atop the dome and placed her on a relatively small steel pilaster in the center of the parking area. The chopper's downwash was rather strong; I muttered a prayer that the "Jesus nut" would hold during the proceedings. We returned in October of that year to see the process play out in reverse as a restored Freedom, all 19' 6" and 15,000 pounds of her, was returned to her lofty perch. She faces due East to observe every sunrise, the goings-on at the Supreme Court, and to wink at the Mother Country 'cross the pond... https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

- Ed

p.s. MODS - Sorry for the large picture size; I attempted to downsize each, but to no avail...

https://blogs.loc.gov/picturethis/files/2016/05/361159pu-742x1024.jpg

https://www.aoc.gov/sites/default/files/6899097828_9e8cce320b_o.jpg

[SASless]

The video is a promotional for the operator but has some splendid segments about the capability of the Crane.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iN9NnnOWeM

[JohnDixson]

Had to dig out Jack McKenna’s “ Sky Crane, Igor Sikorsky’s Last Vision “ to confirm some things that I “ sorta remembered “ from conversations about what had gone on before I signed on. Even that reference doesn’t answer all with finality.

Re the rotor head being the prototype for the Super Frelon: cannot say, but always heard it was a modified S-61 head. It is perhaps more than curious that the rotor diameter of the 61 and Super Frelon are exactly the same ( thus the centrifugal forces on the individual blade arms etc would be in the same ballpark etc. The too the 61 head had a naval ( auto folding ) variant like the Super Frelon whereas the six bladed 64 head didn’t. The parent S-56 head was manual fold.

Love the conversation re Army Crane pilots. Assignments to 64 outfits had to come out of the Warrant Officers bBranch at the pentagon and it was curious that it seemed to most observers that only the senior, experienced pilots were assigned to those units.They were an interesting group. At Pleiku in 1965-66 there was a CWO-3 Merle Handley who everyone got to know-a most gregarious and friendly member of WOPA ( the unofficial tern applied to the Army Warrant Officer Pilots Union. Now there was no such thing, but on some occasions, danmned if events didn’t disprove that assumption. ). Later on in that war, we heard at Sikorsky that the Army was dropping 10,000 lb bombs from a Crane in order to clear landing zones. Amazingly, we heard the names and Merle Handley was involved. Soon after, he was sent up to the factory in Stratford to report on that work and pops into the Pilots Office unannounced. Merle is all dressed up and always cut a figure: in shape, lots of decorations, a trace of gray at the temples, trousers creased and shoes like mirrors etc.. After renewing acquaintances, I take him into meet our Chief test Pilot, Bob Decker. I’m just about to introduce him when Merle goes around the desk to Decker and says “ Hello Mr. Decker, I’m Merle Handley, the Army’s best helicopter pilot and also the most handsome”. This was way before the UTTAS and I was a very junior member of the group. ( and thinking that, anymore stunts like this from other friends and I might forget about ever getting to be a senior member ). Mr. Lappos was not yet with us to witness this.

SAS, I think you put your finger on the factor that worked against the crane’s longevity, which was that it was really, really good at the very heavy sling load work, and as things progressed with both the CH-53E and the advanced Chinook variants, a special purpose machine wasn’t needed. Sure, there was the People Pod design and it worked fine, and it could have been modified, I’m sure, to have a removable hole in the floor to permit single point slings, but perhaps some foresaw a queuing theory problem in the field: “ whose got the People Pod for 429?? “. Etc.

Some very very good aviators have flown ( and are now flying ) that aircraft. Putting the CN Tower together is a video that stands out. Back Seat pilot was Larry Pravecek of Ericsson , in his prior life working for the 101st Airborne at Dong Batin ( spelling? ) and then Sikorsky.

And, name another helicopter in which, in order to attain the stature of first pilot, one must demonstrate ground taxi, hover, takeoff, climb and pattern flying to include a precise approach to a hover at your takeoff point and then landing, all from a pilot position facing toward the tail rotor. Instruments are a torque meter and a hook load indicator as well as an AFCS input/control authority crosspointer indicator. Not so much that its hard ( its not ) but it is unique!

[Fareastdriver]

Stands back corrected! My informant at Aerospatiale obviously knew less about his company's helicopters than I did.

[Pilot DAR]

one must demonstrate ground taxi, hover, takeoff, climb and pattern flying to include a precise approach to a hover at your takeoff point and then landing, all from a pilot position facing toward the tail rotor.

Was the rearward facing pilot permitted to demonstrate a circuit flown backward?

[SASless]

The informal account I heard about the "People Pod" had it that Sikorsky did not challenge the Army's desire to utilize "explosive bolts" for attaching the Pods....actually releasing the Pods in an Emergency.

The rumor was that the Army design criteria employed the explosive bolts but did not provide for an adequate safety system for the "People Pod" as it used a generic safety system for all the Pods....which of course included a Cargo Pod, a Hospital Pod, and the "People Pod".

The Crane Pilots decided to refuse to fly any aircraft that had a People Pod when the Army insisted (in a manner common to many Armies.....to find a field expedient method that was at the same time quick and cheap to implement) upon attaching some Sixty Thousand Locking Wire to the Pod and running it through the Rear Facing Cockpit and up the stairway into the Forward facing Cockpit Left Pilot's Seat where the Aircraft Commander sat.....and fastening that end around the AC's Wedding Tackle....so if the Pod was jettisoned it would be intentional and out of dire need and not due to some finger fumbling around with the wrong switch in the Cockpit.

Perhaps Brother Dixson can research that rumor for us.

[MightyGem]

Did the cyclic for the rear facing pilot operate in the conventional sense: ie, he moved the cyclic in the direction he wanted the aircraft to move?

[IFMU]

Did the cyclic for the rear facing pilot operate in the conventional sense: ie, he moved the cyclic in the direction he wanted the aircraft to move?
Yes. When I worked in Stratford one of my office neighbors was an active crane pilot for the Guard. He also said it was fun flying around backwards from the third seat because coordinated backwards turns made the other pilots uncomfortable. He loved the crane and we talked about it often.

[JohnDixson]

PilotDAR,

Let me put it this way. We had a procedure for checking out a pilot in a new aircraft. Had to attend a ground school taught by an internal teaching group, then a flight syllabus with a sign off sheet for the various individual teaching elements. When they were complete and the hours were to the requirement, one of the IP’s was in the final ride and you were signed off. It was just that with the Crane, there was this other little “ detail “ not in the syllabus. So, it wasn’t so much...permitted...as an expected but unofficial demonstration of one’s skill. Besides, it was fun.

SAS, that is a new one on me. I cannot imagine having an active jettison system for a manned pod. I’ll try and find someone who worked on the pods.

Found a manual online. Load levelers had both a std release, and an emergency jettison, and then a manual lock which rendered the other two releases inoperative.

As to the other wire operated device cited by SAS, i can only guess that the fishing might be a bit off today, whilst the supply of Christmas Cheer left over from the holidays perhaps needed attention.

[JohnDixson]

http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/strange_vehicles/boeing-bv-347.html
One of the CH-54 design innovations replicated down in Philadelphia.

Obviously, the rear facing pilot cab was lowered into position after takeoff.

[sycamore]

Actually it`s for `washroom` facilities....

JD,did you ever become involved with the S-72 IN `AEROPLANE MODE...?

[JohnDixson]

Not at all. After the end of the UTTAS development in 1976, I was lucky to be temporarily assigned to West Palm as Ch Pilot there, and to do the S-76 with Nick Lappos and his team in the newly opened Development Flight Test Facility. After that, back to Stratford for the opening of the UH-60 production flight operation.

I always did wonder about the willingness of private companies to put their new untested rotors on a US Gov’t testbed for flight investigation and development, for all sorts of reasons.

[Droop Snoot]

Off topic, but perhaps John D or other erudite individuals can reply...

What is the purpose of the anterior ventral proboscis (i.e. front lower nose) on the chin?

(Can't put my hands on my copy of Jack McKenna's book, but I don't think it is in there...)

DS
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1486/nasm_si_84_8161_d500c5513cf62a3cd4d512945f7f17d39e77e600.jpg

[JohnDixson]

Hello DS and that was an observant question. The pic, by the way, was of the first turbine powered Crane prototype. I thought I remembered the reason for that fairing, but just to make sure I contacted a retired SA Tehnical Fellow with expertise in avionics, antennas, systems etc. He confirmed that it was a fairing designed to prevent the radar altimeter from seeing the load. There is some irony here as the production Army ships did not include a rad alt.

[Droop Snoot]

John...

Thanks for the reply. As you know and has been discussed here, the S-64 is full of all sorts of interesting features and innovations due to its mission and heritage.
That fairing is the antithesis of an antenna.... it's designed to block signals rather than capture them!:cool:

DS