Any idea what happened to the HH-52 Project?

[Geronimo369 0]

Seems it's been 2 years or so and I remember it was being worked on around FS9. I believe Ron Hagen made it. There are several pictures of the model at hovercontrol.com and the detail is outstanding, even the interior. It's a shame it's never been released. Anyone have a clue if it's still being worked on or is it VaporWare? It would be awesome to see the little baby S-61 (S-62) released...Here's a couple pics:http://www.hovercontrol.com/cgi-bin/ifolio/imageFolio.cgi?action=view&link=Screenshot_Gallery/Development_Screenshotsℑ=HH52AfrontQuarter.jpghttp://www.hovercontrol.com/cgi-bin/ifolio/imageFolio.cgi?action=view&link=Screenshot_Gallery/Development_Screenshotsℑ=HH52Ahover.jpg

[oaklandfd213 0]

I was wondering the same thing. I had always wanted a good quality HH-52 for flight sim and had been very excited when i saw the photos posted on hovercontrol. Please tell us that it is almost done or that it is not dead!! please!

[rambow 0]

Hi guys, "The Flying Lifeboat" project is by no means dead. This will be a quick post to make sure we can work this picture upload thing, which seems to have been upgraded, using a few WIP shots that are already a bit dated. Then Ron will step up and give you a more comprehensive answer and some recent screenies.

[rhagen 0]

Why, yes!...I have an idea what happened to it. Work continues slowly but surely. Sometimes good progress is made. Sometimes my real job gets in the way. In any event, here are some additional WIPs of the work that is going on in the cockpit. 3D gauges abound. Work continues on simulating the electrical and hydraulic systems. We are looking at every knob & switch to see if we can simulate real world behavior. Release is not imminent, but rest assured that the project is still very much alive! Oaklandfd213, I presume you hail from Oakland California? If you are as old as I am you might remember SFO Helicopter Airlines? Well, I can’t promise an S-62 variant will be released with the HH-52A, but if and when an S-62 is released its primary livery will likely be in SFO Helicopter Airlines colors. Along with an OMHelicopters livery, the VH-ORP Nemo, an Australian S-62. This outfit is still flying S-62s in multiple countries. There’s also likely to be a Briles Catalina Airlines and the original Sikorsky prototype colors. I reiterate though, an S-62 varient is by no means certain at this time. Cheers,Ron

[rambow 0]

Great shots, Ron. I'm blown away by the work you and Hansi are doing on those panels. (Hans-Joerg Naegele is our wizard code creator) I can't wait to see MAAM HH-52 pilot Ron Price's face when he first sits in your virtual cockpit and everything works. So, where can we get some livery and interior cabin shots for these various S-62's. Come on, you know you wanna do it! :-) ROAD TRIP!!!!

[rhagen 0]

Bill, our first road trip takes us “down under”. If an S-62 variant is released, the first livery should probably go to a particular S-62, which at the time the reference material was acquired from the Australian operator, was registered as VH-ORP. At that time they were operating three S-62As and one S-62C. Folks might have seen one flying around Western Australia on commercial passenger and cargo operations between Geraldton and the islands of the Houtmans' Abrolhos Archipelago in support of the Western Rock Lobster fishing fleet or for the Australian Maritime Search and Rescue (AMSAR). Or perhaps one may have been witnessed flying in Honduras around Roatan Island in the Bay Islands area. The in-flight sounds, both internal and external, for our HH-52A project were derived from recordings generously provided by this operator. Here are some shots of the VH-ORP. More road trips to follow,Ron

[rambow 0]

"Beauty! She's a real corker, a rip-snorter, bonzer and a real grouse ship! Those are all the "Strine" superlatives I can come up with at the moment. Speaking for myself, I'd love to back to Oz. I R&R'ed in Sydney back in Dec of '67 and loved the place and the people. There's the small matter of the horrendous air-fare, which Uncle Sam covered the first time around, but if you're buying, I'm flying! ;-) I was picturing a more luxurious interior when you started talking about airlines, though. Did anyone pretty up the cabins for civilian use? From a design standpoint, what changes in the model would be required to convert our HH-52 to a S-62? At a casual glance, I don't see a difference, except for what I assume is a radome on VH-ORP. I realize we would normally have this sort of discussion by e-mail, but we'll give the customers a peek under the tent. :-)

[rhagen 0]

I’m glad you asked Bill. Why yes, there were private charter VIP cabins like the one in Relair’s N1925N. (see last pix in attachments) But first, lest take a road trip to the San Franciso Bay area for a look at SFO Helicopter Airlines. I don’t have a cabin photo yet but you can almost make out some airline seating in the first attachment. SFO (SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND) HELICOPTER AIRLINES, INC., 1961-1976In the early '60s there were 4 Helicopter 'Scheduled Air Carriers' (Airlines) Chicago Helicopters, New York Airways, LA (Los Angeles) Helicopters, & SFO.SFO was the only helicopter airline not subsidized by the Federal Gov't They flew 4 main routes out of San Francisco. OAK rt. every 1/2 hr.-Berkeley, Mill Valley, Ferry building (San Francisco) -San Jose, Palo Alto, and OAK, Lafayette, or Concord, Sometimes landing downtown Oakland. The average flight was 7 minutes, so they got plenty of practice doing takeoffs and landings. They flew strictly VFR (Visual Flight) from about 6:00 am to 11:00 pm (Two shifts) 7 days a week. Although most of the pilots had Instrument Ratings, the Aircraft was not equiped or certified to operate under instrument weather conditions. They all knew intimately knew the Bay Area's obstructions and terrain intimately. They flew between 3.5 and 4 hours every shift. Most of the passengers were commuting to their flights out of SFO or OAK and returning home on return. In later years, the helicopters were painted yellow and black, and the theme was "The Beeline to your Airline". Mike Holmes: “We got to know many of our passengers by sight, if not by name, as some we'd see almost daily. One of our many interesting passengers was Janis Joplin, who flew with us out of our Marin County Heliport (Mill Valley) often. The "Great full Dead " were also regular customers from Marin. Many good Station Agents' stories, there!” Over the years we also flew many Charters to many interesting destinations. We flew the Rolling Stones and their attorney, Melvin Belli, to their Star Crossed Concert at the Altamont Speedway near Tracy. They neglected to pay their bill, by the way. Celebrities, Government Agencies, and Politicians, very often don't!Another interesting charter that we did every Saturday and Sunday for about 2 months one summer, was to Pine Mountain Lake, in the Sierra Foothills near Columbia. We took 26 passengers from Oakland Airport, who had flown in from all over the country to buy vacation property from the developer. We flew to the property, did a couple of circles around the area, then landed in the lake, taxied around for a couple of minutes, then lifted off and landed on the golf course in front of the club house. By 1977, all of the above mentioned Helicopter Airlines were out of business. Chicago Helicopters went out of Operation by 1962. LA Helicopters in 1968. New York Airways had a landing gear failure on the Pam Am Building's Rooftop Heliport (NY) rolled over on its' side, and a part of a rotor blade landed on a surface street below. That accident closed the Pan Am Building's Heliport's doors for good and they went out of business in 1977.We flew all over the Country setting power poles, wires, air conditioners and signs on roofs, dropping water on fires, logging, and other items that needed to be moved and installed on, or in, some location not accessible from the surface. Often these jobs were not exactly "fun", but we were usually anxious to accept the challenge, plus we received extra 'Hazard' pay. Sometimes we really DID earn it!SFO went out of business late 1976, after a bankruptcy, and a series of questionable Stock manipulations, and a very seriously questioned, staged, Labor/Management problem. SFO's aircraft were sold to Bristow Helicopters in England, to service the North Sea Oil Rigs, which they are likely still doing. (Differences between the HH-52A and S-62A,C to follow)

[rhagen 0]

Now we head to Bridgeport to see what the factory prototype and demonstrator ship looked like. But first some notes on the differences between the S-62s and HH-52A. Wheel Pants: The wheel pants underneath the sponsons, seen on the number one ship, would disappear sometime after the third production ship. The addition of the wheel pants wouldn’t be much of a problem to add. Los Angeles Airways received the first two production ships after the prototype and these were later seen with the wheel pants removed. For this reason, our production S-62 variants will probably be sans wheel pants too. Aft Fuel Tank: About the 16th production aircraft, the second fuel tank, marked by a filler cap beneath the third cabin window on the left side, would appear. Removing the second fuel tank filler cap would be more work than it’s worth, IMO, requiring model and texture (and bump map) changes most won’t even notice. The code changes and fuel switches and indicators would also need to be changed. So even the prototype will have a second fuel tank, as inaccurate as that may be. Landing Gear: The Coast Guard required the main gear to be reversed on HH-52As, as compared to the S-62As, to allow the use of shipboard tiedowns on the landing gear. Additional “High tiedowns” can be seen on HH-52As attached to the upper sides of the fuselage at the sponson strut attach point. Engine Cowling: The early S-62s and HH-52A engine shutter doors, placement and number, were different. This is merely a texture and bump map change for us. Despite this I don’t think it’s worth the effort to change. In latter production years, Sikorsky standardized the S-62C and HH-52As. The purpose of the shutter doors was to reduce the flow of oxygen to the flames in case of fire – and to hold in the fire agent within the engine compartment. Auxiliary inflatable Floats: While the boat hull and sponsons provided amphibious capability for the S-62A and HH-52A, there were problems with stability in high seas. The original solution was a small auxiliary float in a small recess on the outboard side of each sponson. On the HH-52As, starting in November 1963, this system was replaced with larger, two-part floats attached to the outside of each sponson. These floats had covers, which were secured with bungee cord, and air bottles located inside the fuselage. With the S-62s, auxiliary floats were optional equipment. It seems that almost all original operators of the S-62 did not opt for the auxiliary floatation or they were equipped with the recessed style. With one notable exception – Briles Catalina Airlines had the same external aux floatation as the HH-52As, probably because they spent most of their time over open ocean, far from shore. Some ex-Coast Guard Seaguards have made it into civil hands and retained that style, but even in these cases, it seems most have decided to remove them. For us, this would require remodeling and retexture mapping (including bump maps) the sponsons to remove the aux floatation. When the sponsons where created, we had no plans to produce a civil S-62 variant. The lack of this foresight is going to bite us in the a$$ in other areas too. :-) Engines: Civil airframes were originally equipped with the CT58-100-1, identical to the Coast Guard T58-8B. Use of the CT58-100-2 was approved in 1961, and the CT58-110-1 came into use in 1962. These three engines differed primarily in maximum shaft horsepower and continuous gas generator speed limits. This has the potential to create significant work, both for code changes and *.air & aircraft.cfg file changes. At this time it’s hard to say as we haven’t begun to put a serious attempt into the flight dynamics. It seem inevitable that some of Hansi’s code magic will be required to assists the *.air & aircraft.cfg files. Also the engine power gauges between the HH-52A and the S-62 are based on different technologies requiring separate gauges and code to run them. Rotor brake locations. See attached pix for the overhead panels. That’s a lot more work than it looks! :-) Resue Hoist: Almost all S-62s did not have a rescue hoist. This is an easy one for us. Cabin Door: The S-62s had a cabin door-open indicator in the cockpit. This was absent from the HH-52A, since flight with the door open was a normal part of operations. This should be relatively easy to add to the model and code. Windsheild wipers: The HH-52As were electrically powered and the S-62s were hydraulic. (go figure?) This requires some code changes. (we model the electrical and hydraulic systems and the availability of power or failure states have to be accounted for. These bound to be a lot of avionics differences that also need to be accounted for ) Instrument Panels, Instrumentation and Avionics: This is where the biggest work load is going to come from. The S-62A was originally produced with a main instrument panel that only filled half the width of the cockpit. After the introduction of the HH-52A, with its Coast Guard requirement for a full-width, more heavily instrumented panel, the S-62A was similarly equipped for the sake of standardization. The Instruments themselves of the S-62A was not upgraded however. Only a few of the military style gauges ended up in the S-62s also. (It was common for S-62 operators to customize their panels so we have some leeway here) The center and overhead consoles differed greatly between the S-62A and HH-52A. No attempt at standardization was made. This will require extensive changes to the model and code. Cockpit to cabin door: On the S-62A variants only, a sliding door with a round window was fitted between the cockpit and cabin sections. It was absent from the HH-52A because of the need for the copilot to easily access the cabin during SAR operations. It should be too much trouble for us to add this. Cabin: This would have been little easier had I done things differently in the cabin. This is one of those areas I was alluding to early when I mention something about “lack of foresight is going to bite us in the a$$ in other areas too”. Some of the Coast Guard equipment is blocking areas of the cabin that are not modeled or textured correctly. Just adding the seats or whatever is pretty straight forward but will require significant work. Not extremely massive but nothing to sneeze at either. And now, finally, the color scheme of Ship Nmber One. (along with some pix showing the panel differences)

[rambow 0]

Getting quite an education, here! Thanks, Ron. Since the changes obviously go far beyond the merely cosmetic, perhaps the civil version might be a good candidate for an upgrade of the package at a later date, rather than delay the release. What do you think?

[rhagen 0]

I agree. An S-62 variant has the potential to require a protracted development period. We still have a long way to go with the HH-52A. There is another S-62 variant I would like to do but only after the S-62A/C. The S-62B. There was only one produced. It is what the S-62A should have been and almost was. During the development of the S-62A the possibility of adding a fourth rotor blade was considered. Instead, the decision was made to use proven, long service life components from the S-55 to reduce the cost of manufacturing and maintaining. The combination of S-55 rotor blades, main and tail rotor heads, gearboxes, shafts, tail rotor pylon, and hydraulic systems with the, then new, General Electric T58 powerplant would improve the performance of the new aircraft over its predecessor through lighter weight, greater payload, and more available horsepower. Development time to military specifications was seen as half that of the models being developed by Sikorsky's competitors. S-55 owners even had the option to trade their older helicopters for S-62As at a reduced price, with the S-55 components going into their new aircraft. S-62B: Development of the S-62 began in 1957 but by 1960 the idea of using a fourth rotor blade reemerged. An S-62B was built using a new gearbox and the proven S-58 rotor system . This would have allowed the engine to operate without the restrictions of derating. (the full ~1,400 shp as opposed to the derated 730 shp) As a result, both top speed and maximum altitude would increase measurably. (from 105 knots to 130 knots) Useful load would have likely doubled. The S-62B did not go into full production, however. Unlike the S-55, which was produced in quantity for the civil market, there were few S-58s in commercial service to use as a source of components. At the same time, escalation of the conflicts in Southeast Asia placed a heavy demand on the availability of parts for the military's H-34 version of the S-58. Ten years later, with H-34s leaving military service and entering the civil market in large numbers, the situation might have been different. Ultimately, only one S-62B was built. This went to the Indian Air Force for high-altitude SAR work tests in 1961. Source: Lennart Lundh’s “Sikorsky HH52A An Illustrated History” ISBN 0-7643-1782-2 Pictured, the S-62B with S-58 components and fully rated T-58.

[rhagen 0]

Here is a short speil and some photos of another S-62 livery candidate. Catalina Airlines was founded in 1940 as Catalina Air Transport, and was based in Long Beach, California. In 1953, it became Avalon Air Transport, and in 1963, Catalina Airlines. The airline was acquired by Golden West Airlines in 1969. Catalina Airlines Inc began operations in 1973, taking over the Golden West operation and most of their fleet of Grumman Gooses. Catalina Airlines Inc flew the Catalina Channel for about eight years. Air service to the island was augmented with two Sikorsky S-62 helicopters and one Sikorsky S-58 helicopter. In 1981 Catalina Airlines, Inc. ceased operations.

[rambow 0]

Great looking livery.