World Records Time to Altitude CH-54A Tarhe
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!
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!
Last edited by JohnDixson; 2nd Jan 2019 at 17:26. Reason: additional thought. typo, grammar
Moderator
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 3rd Jan 2019 at 03:33. Reason: Added info
http://www.diseno-art.com/encycloped...ng-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.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 3rd Jan 2019 at 11:52. Reason: Added info
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.
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.
S-64A proboscis
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
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
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.
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!
DS
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!
DS
