Sikorsky S-55 Helicopter – Kermit Weeks

If anyone could get it done, it’d be Kermit. Been hearing a buzz about the possibility of selling seats on daily short flights out there. The Ford Tri-motor, Sunderland, and newly acquired C-47 being mentioned as possible aircraft for that. Even the S-55 here.

http://youtu.be/EdG5bPwcHw0

I wish him luck.

If it’s the S-55, I’ll be first in line.
As a very young boy, the first helicopter I saw in the flesh was a Air Rescue Service H-19. I can still remember its look and smell.
The Tri-Motor is also on my list, though I’ll probably have to gotto the EAA to do it. My father’s first airplane flight was in one, a barnstormer came to his farm town with one in the 30s.

The Tri-Motor and C-47 should be easily doable. They, like the S-55, have FAA Type Certificates.

The Sunderland, might be a bit more problematical. They’d have to be done like the current warbird flights in the USA.

For those of you impatient for a Sunderland flight…
Put yourself in Week’s place…where in the world would you get checked out in it?

If anyone could get it done, it’d be Kermit. Been hearing a buzz about the possibility of selling seats on daily short flights out there. The Ford Tri-motor, Sunderland, and newly acquired C-47 being mentioned as possible aircraft for that. Even the S-55 here.

http://youtu.be/EdG5bPwcHw0

For those of you impatient for a Sunderland flight…
Put yourself in Week’s place…where in the world would you get checked out in it?

Is anyone, anywhere still current in the beast?
Aside from a few Canadians who fly the Martin Mars, and the Japanese who fly the PS/US-1…I’d guess there are not many 4 engine flying boat pilots out there.

That, along with the amount of work involved in inspecting it to get ready for flight…to say nothing of fixing any problems found….I’m afraid I’d be tempted to leave it where it is.

Better to be a live rich guy with a grounded plane than a dead rich guy trying to make a few anoraks happy. :D:diablo::D

Not 100% sure, but believe that the Short Sunderland was being worked on recently and readied for use. Anyone else have news on that?
.

Apparently it requires a huge amount of work, but is in the queue…

Helicopter days Part one

What a great thread:D You can guess from my user name where my interest lies. After 3 years on the Lightning at Wattisham (hydraulic bay,tyres and external fuel tank servicing) I got to pick my final posting , RAF Ternhill the Central Flying School, Rotary wing squadron! First on the rotbox Whirlwind ,Major and Minor servicing where I had my first helicopter flight when I was the man with the clipboard on a first flight after a service. My main instruction from the pilot was to keep a good lookout for other choppers the sky seemed full of the go anyway machines. The autorotation test was an unusual experience keeping my eyes on a stopwatch and outside at the same time. Then we returned to base and I changed places with a student. The machine was airworthy and starting to earn its keep. Then I moved onto the love of my life. The Sioux. more to follow later. Super Sioux

Update on Sikorsky S-55 Helicopter – Kermit Weeks

Kermit just got the blades delivered for the Sikorsky S-55 helicopter. Hope that means that a restoration will start soon. That bird needs to fly, not just be a static exhibit. What do you think?

http://youtu.be/EdG5bPwcHw0

Not 100% sure, but believe that the Short Sunderland was being worked on recently and readied for use. Anyone else have news on that?

Don’t know about the Sunderland, but I was just out there and they are working on getting both the B-25 and the Gee Bee Z ready to fly. They are doing engine tests on both next week. Kermit plans to fly the Gee Bee later in June.

I’m an ex Wessex engineer as some of you will know… Trouble with Kermit is he appears to get them airworthy, then most do a couple of flights and that’s it, would much prefer to see the Sunderland back in the air.. But that’s just me. 🙂

Not 100% sure, but believe that the Short Sunderland was being worked on recently and readied for use. Anyone else have news on that?

Also, on this Memorial Day…, A heartfelt thank you and God bless to all those who have died in our nation’s service.

I’m an ex Wessex engineer as some of you will know… Trouble with Kermit is he appears to get them airworthy, then most do a couple of flights and that’s it, would much prefer to see the Sunderland back in the air.. But that’s just me. 🙂

I’ve flown both US and European birds and, yes, the rotors do turn in opposite direction; I once saw a Dutch navy Lynx pilot take off in a Huey and spin twice before catching it…as he’d pulled pitch and instinctively applied power pedal for the Lynx.

Err: no! The Lynx is a Westland (now AgustaWestland) design and has the main rotor turning the same way as the Huey. It’s only the Frogs and Ruskies that have their designs going t’other way :rolleyes:

I find that ‘not thinking’ about the pedal input to be the best way of dealing with changing from (for instance) an A109 to a Squirrel. Just watch the nose and keep it straight as you pull power 😀

With 14k hours on turbines and <1k on pistons, there’s not that much difference once you just fly the things. Nr control on older pistons was always fun, the Hiller 12E was touchy, the Whirlwind HAS7 (S55 with an Alvis Leonides radial) was awesome for a (just) 20 year old Midshipman 😎

Lots of fond memories of the Whirlwind, though: climbing up the side of the monster, hearing each piston catch as the radial chuffed into life, hovering over the water being taught how to winch & trying valiantly to keep the Nr somewhere within the green range, that enormous, tall cyclic control to give enough leverage in the event of reverting to manual control, the glasshouse view out through about 6 panes of perspex joined by inches thick struts, the joy of sliding the door/window open and flying with your arm out in the breeze. Happy days 😀

And Duxford have one of the actual airframes that I flew: that makes me feel….. older?

Yes!
The nice thing about a Bell 47 is the view. Nothing in front, above or beside you. Flying with the doors offon a warm summer day is a treat.

Also, while I’m sure I’d love a turbine machine, there is something satisfying about the old Bell. The sound, the simplicity, the effort involved…rather like driving a vintage car.
And like comparing a vintage car with a new Porsche, there are newer vehicles that allow you to do much more with much less effort, but the involvement of the operator makes it worthwhile.

Doors off on a warm summer day, that is a treat. I could go for that. And I’m right with you on vintage cars, and anything else vintage. There’s a lot to be said for the solid workmanship and heart put into the classics of yesteryear.

Update on Kermit’s blog http://blog.kermitweeks.com/?p=4628

Checked it out. Thanks ErrolC. Glad to see that such an important piece of transportation history is going to be preserved. Kudos to Kermit.

Love the posts on helicopter flying here too. Never had the pleasure but seems like a very intense and awesome experience.

http://youtu.be/EdG5bPwcHw0

Is it fun?

Yes!
The nice thing about a Bell 47 is the view. Nothing in front, above or beside you. Flying with the doors offon a warm summer day is a treat.

Also, while I’m sure I’d love a turbine machine, there is something satisfying about the old Bell. The sound, the simplicity, the effort involved…rather like driving a vintage car.
And like comparing a vintage car with a new Porsche, there are newer vehicles that allow you to do much more with much less effort, but the involvement of the operator makes it worthwhile.

Fun? Oh yes, rattling along at ~50ft at 130+ kts is always fun – so too is stopping quickly! You can relax on the bigger more automated machines. Most modern turbines can be flown “hands off” through an autopilot or stab system. Although I’ve not flown the R22/R44 I understand they are more intensive to fly and less forgiving of inattention.

Oh, and a Chinook will climb at over 3000fpm…vertically….

Thanks Stepwilk, J Boyle and Evalu8ter for your responses. From you all it sounds like an intense experience from the moment you get in to the moment you set down. Certainly full of concentration, and doesn’t sound “leisurely” at all, like a plane piloting can be. I’m sure in all that though, there is a tremendous amount of enjoyment. Is it fun?

I’ve obviously been spoilt as I’ve never flown a piston helicopter! A turbine helicopter, if FADEC equipped, has almost no lag between a power demand and the torque reaction coming on so you need to be smart with your feet – like a piston/turbine plank. I’ve flown both US and European birds and, yes, the rotors do turn in opposite direction; I once saw a Dutch navy Lynx pilot take off in a Huey and spin twice before catching it…as he’d pulled pitch and instinctively applied power pedal for the Lynx. As a CH47 pilot, any other helicopter is different, so I just take it slllooooowwwlllyyyy until I’ve got the hang of it….or pretend that I’m in a Chinook with the stab off. Being Chinook specific for a moment, it actually flies like a FW above 40kts. You can do running landings at up to 60Kts, and it’s very stable. I’ve had people with no flying experience fly the chinook sim within 30 minutes. Generally, the bigger the helicopter the easier it is to fly due to inertia and power boosted controls.

Are there differences between piloting a turbine helicopter and a piston one? Thanks.

I too have never flown a turbine.
To answer your question to the best of my limited experiance, turbine helicopters have auto throttles linked to the collective. In the Bell 47 and other early piston designs, when you raised the collective, not only in the take-off climb (where it might be expected) but in minor climbs or descents at altitude, you have to add or decrease throttle to prevent low rotor rpms or overspeeds, respectively.

One bit of helicopter flying I did not fully appreciate until I flew them was low rotor rpm is as deadly to a helicopter as a stall is to a fixed wing design.
Once you’re fully trained, a good pilot can sense any problems by noise and “seat of the pants” feel. I understand some designs have low rpm warning indicators.

Stephen is correct, torque comes from the main rotor. On takeoff you counteract the torque by using the opposite foot on a tail rotor pedal. It’s the same principle as using a rudder to counteract torque on takeoff in a fixed-wing aircraft. I understand European designs have their main rotors spinning in the opposite direction to US types, so depending on the type of helicopter, a pilot might have to use the opposite foot that he’s used to. Again, a seasoned pilot would (more or less) automatically make the change without thinking about it.

IIRC, the Robinson does have a auto throttle similar to turbine helicopters. Perhaps it could be a feature on any future piston models if the engine is equipped with FADEC.

To me, the basic differences between fixed-wing and helo flying are that 1/airplanes are inherently stable while helicopters desperately want to diverge, and 2/flying airplanes is intuitive and helo flying isn’t. I can–and have–given quite ordinary nonpilots the controls of a light airplane after takeoff (an experienced instructor could talk them through the entire takeoff as well) and have had them “fly” to their heart’s content. Drive it up, drive it down, as the Cessna ads of the 1960s used to say.

Okay, these novices haven’t made instrument approaches to minimums or landed in a crosswind or dealt with an engine failure in a twin, but the basic act of “flying” a fixed-wing airplane is very simple, particularly once you teach somebody to trim the airplane.

Basic helicopters require 100-percent attention, and very few of the control inputs are intuitive. They require thought–okay, training and repetition–and a level of hand/eye coordination far beyond what is required to fly a Cessna. Which to me is what makes it so much fun.

I’ve never flown a turbine helicopter, so I can’t answer your question with any authority, but the torque in a helicopter is produced by the main rotor, not the engine. So I assume that torque-wise, there is no difference between a recip or turbine helicopter.

Really interesting. To Stepwilk, Evalu8ter, J Boyle and any other helicopter flyers. Torque was mentioned as a difference between flying helicopters and planes. Are there differences between piloting a turbine helicopter and a piston one? Thanks.

For anybody who hasn’t done it, flying fling-wings makes airplanes boring.

Truer words have never been spoken.
After flying my (rented) Bell 47, typical GA types seem boring.