Erickson S-64F+ Optionally Manned
Thread Starter
ok many questions:
How does the aircraft structure can receive the load at the those 4 points? (the place where the 4 cables seem to attach on the picture above)
With he force of the load not being vectored to a point close bellow the main transmission as the aircraft bank, wouldn't the aircraft be unstable?
How does the aircraft structure can receive the load at the those 4 points? (the place where the 4 cables seem to attach on the picture above)
With he force of the load not being vectored to a point close bellow the main transmission as the aircraft bank, wouldn't the aircraft be unstable?
ok many questions:
How does the aircraft structure can receive the load at the those 4 points? (the place where the 4 cables seem to attach on the picture above)
With he force of the load not being vectored to a point close bellow the main transmission as the aircraft bank, wouldn't the aircraft be unstable?
How does the aircraft structure can receive the load at the those 4 points? (the place where the 4 cables seem to attach on the picture above)
With he force of the load not being vectored to a point close bellow the main transmission as the aircraft bank, wouldn't the aircraft be unstable?
Managing yaw would be more tricky
All loads tend to spin underneath a single rotor helicopter. They may stabilise in forward flight either naturally or artificially but after coming to the hover it will start spinning again. You then have to have lines hanging from the sides or corners so that they can be grabbed by the ground party so they can line up and hold the load in the desired direction and position whilst it is lowered to the ground.
There seems nothing wrong with that four point slinging. The combination is going to be flown very gently so any severe manoeuvres are not going to happen.
Erickson, of all people, should know that it will work.
There seems nothing wrong with that four point slinging. The combination is going to be flown very gently so any severe manoeuvres are not going to happen.
Erickson, of all people, should know that it will work.
The CH-54 was designed with four, 5000 lb each small hoists called load levelers. They were placed equidistant, fore and aft of the main rotor shaft. The picture that was posted has the cables attached to those locations. Certification of the CH-54 military and S-64 commercial models included flight loads survey testing utilizing those attachments.
I recall watching Jack Peterson and Jim Kay do the power off landing at 42k*. When they flared at the bottom, with just the load rack suspended from the load levelers, they just changed attitude-did not get any lift to speak of from the fuselage. Good landing though.
*Now that I think about it, I think the one I saw was the 54B/64F at 47k. The absence of fuselage lift makes the timing of the collective application critical.
I recall watching Jack Peterson and Jim Kay do the power off landing at 42k*. When they flared at the bottom, with just the load rack suspended from the load levelers, they just changed attitude-did not get any lift to speak of from the fuselage. Good landing though.
*Now that I think about it, I think the one I saw was the 54B/64F at 47k. The absence of fuselage lift makes the timing of the collective application critical.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 26th Feb 2021 at 12:51. Reason: additional thought
1. It's a photoshop.
2. As John Dixson mentions, there is a 4 point load leveler system that can pick up cargo. However, prior to takeoff, the load levelers would hoist up the cargo and lock it into position so that the cargo becomes attached to the fuselage. Otherwise even slight maneuvers would cause the cargo to swing into the fuselage and damage the aircraft.
2. As John Dixson mentions, there is a 4 point load leveler system that can pick up cargo. However, prior to takeoff, the load levelers would hoist up the cargo and lock it into position so that the cargo becomes attached to the fuselage. Otherwise even slight maneuvers would cause the cargo to swing into the fuselage and damage the aircraft.
RNAS Culdrose, about 1973-74 when a German Sea King had to be airlifted out of field on the Lizard Peninsular after a dual engine off auto at night by Dave Mallock. Merc Enterprise rescue, Dave earned a well deserved AFC as did the RAN pilot who was in an 824NAS Sea King.
skadi
Does Erickson intend to modify their existing commercial ones or do they plan to refurbish boneyard airframes for military use? What is this US Marines camo pattern about?
"While a robot brain can increase pilot safety, the S-64 has two big challenges to overcome—it’s old and it’s fuel hungry. That’s why the company isn’t just refurbishing the S-64. Instead, it’ll manufacture a brand new aircraft, possibly up to 100 if the global firefighting effort demands it.
Apart from the Matrix control system, the S-64F+ will feature new in-house designed main rotor, new digitally-controlled turboshaft engines, a fly-by-wire flight control system, digital avionics, and an upgraded forward water cannon."
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...ix-helicopter/
The paint scheme is a nod to the remotely piloted Lockheed Martin/Kaman K-MAX UAS operated by the U.S. Marines.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/conte...X-brochure.pdf
The S-64F+ may seem incredibly ambitious, because it is, but those who have followed Erickson over the last couple of decades are unlikely to doubt their capabilities.
Erickson is not Sikorsky. This is why I asked. Building about a hundred sounds like being way beyond what they could do.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manitoba Canada
Age: 72
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Pharts like us are afraid of the whiz kids who could fly one within 10 minutes of being handed the controls.
.Impressive?? - PPRuNe Forums
.Impressive?? - PPRuNe Forums
