I kept wondering how possible it was to raise a score as low as 430 to 800+ until I came in contact with H A C K M A V E N S CREDIT SPECIALIST who helped me clean up all the bad items in my credit report and raised my score to 805 within a short period of time. That was incredible! I strongly recommend them to anyone having credit-related issues. EMAIL: H A C K M A V E N S 5 @ G M A I L. C O M or Call/Text/WhatsApp: [+ 1 (2 0 9) 4 1 7 – 1 9 5 7].
Ibrahim bakir, e-mail, 07.09.2022 19:11
loan offer 2000€ to 9000.000€ We are an association of private investors; We provide all loans, the annual interest rate is 2%. The credit is granted to those who have a fixed or irregular monthly income. The organization is not a bank and does not require many documents. We are ready to grant you a loan of 2,000 to 9,000,000 euros for a repayment period of 1 to 25 years. . For more information, please contact us: bakir9930@gmail.com
Paul L Cook, e-mail, 11.07.2015 08:06
I would like to know why it was never put into civilian production
RN, e-mail, 16.03.2014 04:35
Actually it was Lou Bajorinas and Byron Graham, not Frank Tefft who were flying the ABC the day of the accident.
Larry Roberts, e-mail, 10.03.2014 00:25
I was sitting on the engines of the ABC main rotor test bed installing instrumnetation while observing the 1973 crash. It was a surreal experience. Frank Teft and Byron Graham were the pilots and had cautioned about control instability before the flight. Neither were badly injured. I left Sikorsky that November. It would be interesting to know what control improvements were made prior to resumption of flight testing in 1975.
Turkish, e-mail, 22.10.2013 21:14
why 3 engine? what is the range? skorsky x2 has a 1 engine and same speed and 1300km range.
ron kukler, e-mail, 10.09.2013 10:27
XH-59B is this available from NASA via technology transfer?
Greg Toal, e-mail, 16.05.2013 00:27
I ate lunch (at 3:30am) in Proto type 2 in Stratford Sikorsky in summer '83(?). Fully functional, rather luxurious as prototypes go. The first 3rd shift shutdown. There were around 100 people at the factory total. What a BEAUTIFUL Machine. They should have brought it to production in the CIVILIAN market, as it could fly down at 2 lane road easily.
ahmadgheidian, e-mail, 04.01.2013 22:21
please send me a three-view drawing (1693x1277)of sikorsky s-69/xh-59 .
Rich F, e-mail, 01.08.2012 23:35
I was just at Moffett (Ames) in a trailer on a construction job, and one of these was sitting there... I'm guessing it is prototype #1.
Its windshield was sealed over (painted?), no blades, the tail stabilizers were gone, aux engine shroud pulled off and lying on the ground, the other aux engine removed, totally in disrepair.
I could see that it was designed with no tail rotor, then noticed the housings for what appeared to be 2 main rotors. I figured it was some experiment in counter-rotating blades.
I could read Sikorsky ABC on the side, a bit of research, and now I'm here... sad to see this amazing piece of engineering is lying as a scrap of junk on the base. Took a couple cell phone pics... hope that's not some security issue...
salim, e-mail, 06.04.2012 13:10
I like the air craft its a good and i am reading a air crafting this is a very good thank you
Wow! Just legendary! Your publishing manner is pleasing and the way you dealt the subject with grace is admirably. I am intrigued, I presume you are an expert on this topic. I am subscribing to your future updates from now on.
Len Squibb, e-mail, 25.03.2011 03:38
In late 1971 the Army Air Mobility Research and Development Laboratory awarded Sikorsky a contract for the development of a single-engine research helicopter prototype designed specifically to flight test the company's Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) rotor system. The resultant Model S-69, which was allotted the military designation XH-59A and the serial number 73-21941, made its first flight in July 1973. The XH-59A's ABC system consisted of two three-bladed, coaxial, contra-rotating rigid rotors, both of which were driven by the craft's single 1825shp PT6T-3 Turbo Twin Pac engine. During high-speed flight only the advancing blades of each rotor generated lift; this off-loaded the retreating blades and thereby eliminated the aerodynamic restrictions caused by blade-stall and the high mach number effect of the advancing blade tip. This, in turn, produced greater stability and maneuverability while eliminating the need for either a supplementary lift-generating wing or an anti-torque tail rotor. The XH-59A's streamlined fuselage more closely resembled that of a conventional airplane than a helicopter, having a cantilever tail unit with twin endplate rudders, side-by-side seating for the two crewmen, and fully retractable tricycle landing gear. The crash of the first XH-59A early in the flight test program led to the use of the second prototype incorporating several significant control system modifications. This second machine (73-21942) flew for the first time in 1975, completing the pure helicopter portion of the program, and in 1977 was converted into a compound rotorcraft through the installation of two 1350kg J60-P-3A turbojet engines. The modified machine was jointly evaluated by the Army, Navy, and NASA beginning in 1978, and was later able to reach and maintain speeds in excess of 515kph in level flight. The first prototype was written off and the cockpit was used in the Paris air-show to demonstrate a sighting system for LHX. The existing XH-59A aircraft was officially transferred to the Army museum at Fort Rucker Alabama following the 1981 end of joint Army/Navy participation in the tri-partite flight test program.
In 1972 Sikorsky designed the S-69 for the US Army, gaining a contract for two XH-59A prototypes to evaluate an Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) rotor system comprising two counter-rotating three-bladed rigid main rotors, with a 1361kW Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6T-3 Turbo Twin Pac to power them; the S-69 requires no tail rotor and has a conventional horizontal tail surface with endplate fins and rudders. Additional power is provided by two pod-mounted 1361kg thrust Pratt & Whitney J60-P-3A turbojets, one on each side of the fuselage, and the S-69 has demonstrated a speed of 488km/h.
In 1982 the plan was to develop this aircraft into a new XH-59B configuration with advanced rotors, new power plant, and a ducted pusher propeller at the tail. This approach was seen as a possible solution to the Army's search for a new light attack helicopter (LHX), and further funding was recommended. The S-69/XH-59 program was abandoned, however to pursue the XH15, and the need for LHX was only answered in the 1990s with the selection of the RAH-66 Commanche.
Len Squibb, e-mail, 24.03.2011 01:59
your story under the picture is all screwed up. I worked on this aircraft fot 5 years.
Richard Willis, e-mail, 02.01.2011 03:41
Need info on the XH-59 parts and maintenance also info on howmthe acft compairs with the S-76 major components
Richard Willis, e-mail, 02.01.2011 03:36
To answer the question where a XH-59 is located, we have one at the Army Aviation Museum at Fort Rucker.
Zac Yates, e-mail, 03.11.2010 08:22
Long shot, does anyone know where I can obtain a DVD of a 1980s doco called "The Chopper"? I have no idea who produced it, exact year, or who the English-sounding narrator is. It includes interviews with Hanna Reitsch and Bart Kelley (coworker of Arthur Young at Bell), and other techs and pilots, as well as footage of the prototype NOTAR, Apache, Sikorsky ABC and the XV-15.
Don Hillberg, e-mail, 31.08.2010 01:35
The problem is control,Yaw control is reversed when in autorotation,and that is the drawback of all but one coaxal helicopter,The QH 50 by Gyrodyne has yaw servo tabs at the end of the blades and suffered no ill effects in an auto. Even the Kmax has a yaw reversal in an auto....The X-2 will have die by wire and will probabily have computer with a million bit code just to keep upright....All junk,keep my controls solid,aluminum/steel cheap,easy and it keeps flying with the plug pulled... Bells and whistles don't add to technolgy, Think about it? when the plug is pulled will it still fly?
Jesus Martin, e-mail, 01.07.2010 11:33
Jim, my information regarding that the futher development stopped was the fact that one protipe crassed due to a collision between upper and lower rotors in a concrete attitude of flight. Therefore the clearance between both rotors was not enough.
Nick, e-mail, 19.04.2010 02:32
I flew as a copilot on this helicopter for one short flight from Sikorsky in Stratford, CT to Hartford just before the aircraft was scrapped. Frank lit off the thrusters for takeoff and climbed out at a smart rate. Unfortunately the aircraft vibrated a good deal so it was hard to realize any real speed. It was a kick anyway.
Bill R., 02.04.2010 03:32
Possible answers to some of the questions above. Blade tip speed was never a problem, in fact when equiped with the J60 pushers, Byron would take and throttle back the twin pack and let the blades free wheel. Once up to speed they acted more like wings than blades. Of the 2 aircraft, the original one that crashed was moved out to Dryden or Ames in Cal. The 2nd was eventially retired because the airframe was starting to crack, mostly because we transported it around the country by truck and the vibration wrecked it more than flying it. I believe it was sent down to Fort Rucker to go on display in their air museum. We trucked it around because as a demo model in was made with very small fuel cells installed and would only get about 1/2 hour or so in the helo mode and about 15 minutes with the J60s running.
Jim, e-mail, 01.03.2010 22:40
I worked on a great many ABC designs as at engineer at Sikorsky in the late 60's. We even had concepts where you could tow the aircraft behind a large jet aircraft at over 300Kts to extend the range and speed recovery for downed pilots or other rescue by using a multi-speed transmission to lower tip speeds. Does anyone know what problems were encountered with the S-69 which led them to stop further development?
chmd, e-mail, 22.01.2010 12:14
gooooooooood
bobby conly, e-mail, 26.12.2009 05:53
does anyone know what happened to these prototypes?at the very least one should have made to the smithsonian.
Fred Deuel, e-mail, 16.12.2009 17:12
I'm looking for a set of 3-views for this perticular helicopter to build a radio controled model. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
syahrul alam, e-mail, 02.10.2009 15:04
.................................
Charles Verax, e-mail, 27.04.2009 15:04
The advanced blade concept (ABC) Coaxial rotor system is a very innovative design. I am amazed the United States did not continue with the S-69 project from the 1970's. The s-69/X-59 reached speeds of 322 mph!
The Russians have had their Kamov coaxial helicopters in use since the late 1950's, mainly as Navy shipboard helicopters. However, the Russians more recently developed the Ka-50/52 gunship which has proven to be a very stable platform for an attack helicopter. It is fast (over 200 knots) because its contra rotating rotors reduces the effects of retreating blade stall and dissymmetry of lift.
Also, a contra rotating rotor system uses 100% of its power to produce lift because each blade cancels the torque from the other. Whereas a conventional single rotor helicopter wastes about 20% of its lifting power to turn the anti torque tail rotor. Plus you never have to worry about a tail rotor failure.
Therefore, I believe the United States is behind the power curve because it has not developed a coaxial/contra rotating helicopter. At least Schweizer and Sikorsky in the past few years has been developing a coaxial helicopter design with the X2 technology demonstrator. The X2 made its first flight on August 27, 2008 from Schweizer Aircraft's facility at Horseheads, New York. The flight lasted 30 minutes and began the flight test program. I am eager and optimistic that the X2 will open the door to more advanced coaxial helicopter designs in the United States.
Of course, there have also been many advanced conventional designs that were cancelled in the 1970's and 80's and more recently the RAH-66 Commanche. In the 1970's the Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk and the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne were two extremely advanced gunships, but were cancelled because they were ahead of their time and had cost overruns. The S-67 set a world speed record, could do aerobatics, had speed brakes on its wings, could carry 7 passengers (therefore it was an assault helicopter like the Mi-24 Hind).
The Cheyenne gunship was a compound helicopter because it had a pusher prop, in addition to a tail rotor (which spun off of the same drive shaft) which allowed it to reach speeds of 220 to 245 knots.
Currently Piasecki has modified a UH-60 Black Hawk into a Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller VTDP, compound helicopter, that has a tail-mounted ducted propeller, called the ring-tail (auxiliary propulsion system) and wings.
The VTDP Black Hawk (compound helicopter) has fixed wings that work in concert with the tail to unload the rotor during lift. “By unloading the rotor from its lift and propulsion responsibilities, you can delay the onset of retreating blade stall, which limits the speed of helicopters”
The ability of the compound helicopter to fly long distances at speeds of 230 knots makes the VTDP technology a viable option for upgrading the Army’s Black Hawk fleet, Keep in mind most conventional helicopters fly no faster than 140 knots.
Compound helicopters have “potential advantages in speed and range over conventional helicopters, but have disadvantages in hover, cost and complexity. A suitable application would be one in which the speed and range advantage outweighed the disadvantages. Of course, the coaxial rotor design does not have the weight disadvantage of a compound helicopter and has excellent lifting capabilities.
It will be interesting to see if the new X2 Demonstrator and the VTDP Black Hawk (compound helicopter) will ever make it into production. For some reason, the United States likes to cancel innovative helicopter designs. So, keep an eye on these two projects. They could create some major advances in rotor wing technology in this country that have been long overdue. Otherwise, I guess the Russians will always be way ahead with their coaxial Kamov helicopters!
clare astley, e-mail, 12.03.2009 23:05
I have a comment about helicopters in general. I think it's about time the rotating disc was utilized, which would consist of a airodynamically shaped disc with blades extending beyond its diameter. Only a small part of the conventional rotor blade provides the required lift.In forward flight a rotating disc with blades would be better.
N/A, e-mail, 20.02.2009 03:38
PLOP!
Daniel Rusanowsky, e-mail, 01.01.2009 08:15
As explained above the rotor system was RIGID, no lead & lag or flapping hinges, only pitch change. since the two rotors were only two (2) feet apart the blade tips could only deflect a maximum of 9 inches from horizontal down and the same up, a total of 18 inches to prevent collision of the rotor blades during operation and flight. Any flapping and lead-lag motion was absorbed by the rotor blades.This aircraft in the slow speed mode was controlled and flew exactly like any single disc helicopter with one exception directioal control. This was accomplished by rudder pedal application in the cockpit which changed the pitch of the rotor blades on each head thus changing the torque on the fuselage turning it in the direction required, also at the same time the yaw control (pedals) are coupled with the rudders on the tail of the aircraft would be affective at speeds above 35-45 knots. Cyclic pitch controll affects the main rotors just like any helicopter tipping the rotor disc forward, aft, left or right and increasing or decreasing collective pitch would make the aircraft fly in the direction required and increase or decrease the speed. The ROTOR RPM is CONSTANT for all flight regimes, the disc size is 36 feet, with these two factors and 0 airspeed the blade tips travel at a constant miles per hour (MPH) speed, lets say for discussion purposes 400 MPH. This will keep the blade tip speed from exceeding MACH ONE the speed of sound, when the thrust jets are in operation and the airspeed is at say 300 MPH, the blade tip speed will not exceed MACH.
Danilo, 22.11.2008 01:32
Too Low, Too Bad. It flew like an airplane probably.
Ben, e-mail, 09.11.2008 22:58
Did the fixed rotors provide a lift only primary function, or did the offloading of the retreating blade also imply forward trust? I'm unclear how the aircraft moved forward and maneuvered without the auxiliary turbines (and what was the speed deferential turbines vs. no turbines)?
Thomas Rønnow Larsen, e-mail, 30.10.2008 23:21
Very interesting helicopter. With a rotor diameter of only 11 meters, I wonder what the rotor RPMs were at speeds around the 500 km/h? Were they reduced at these high speeds? Excellent site! Thomas
