Talk:Sikorsky S-61R

Specs

Bill, I can't find USAF fact sheet on the CH-3B/E and HH-3E versions. I would leave off the Sikorsky & Agusta section labels since the AS-61R already lists built under license by Agusta. -Fnlayson 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking. I may be able to find some specs in a old book. We might also check for HH-3F Pelican specs on a USCG or Italian site, since the overall dimensions and weights will be similar to the USAF versions. I'll remove the section labels. I hate transcribing text from books as I'm a very-slow sight typist, so it may be awhile before I get to the text. - BillCJ 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Found some web sites on the S-71R/CH-3/HH-3. I added them to the External links section. -Fnlayson 18:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting some conflicting specs. The Evergreen page lists a power rating of 2300 hp and a service ceiling of 17,500 ft. While the Global Security H-3F page lists 1500 hp and 21,000 ft. I listed both and added ? after the GS data. I can't easily find S-61R specs on Sikorsky's web site. Maybe I'm missing something. Any ideas? Thanks -Fnlayson 19:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's quite possible Evergreen uses up-rated engines, tho 2300 shp seems a bit high for a T58/CT58 engine. I'll ask Alan if he has any thoughts on this, since he workes on turboshafts (PT6Ts on the 412, IIRC). - BillCJ 19:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I guess I'm assuming the 2300 hp is per engine not total. The Evergreen page doesn't specify. -Fnlayson 19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a source listing the CT58-110-1 as installed in the KV0107-II at 1250 shp, the same model listed by Evergreen for its S-61R. Evergreen's site lists the following: Installed Horsepower - 2,300 hp; Takeoff Power - 2,500 hp; Max. Continuous Power - 2,100 hp. Since 1250 x 2 = 2500, I'd say the figures are either for both engines or the transmission output. The airframe and rotor dimensions should be roughly the same for both the HH-3E/F and the civil S-61R version, but we should probably pick one source for the power ratings, and list that model in the top Specs line. - BillCJ 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Article namespace

When the article is ready, I am just going to move it to the new namespace so we can keep the history. Given the various names for the S-61R is military service, I'm leaning toward just using Sikorsky S-61R for the aritcle name. Any thoughts? - BillCJ 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Sikorsky model number seems best. If there was a basic H-3 variant, I'd go with that. But it's not that easy. Redirect pages can be set-up for the CH-3 and HH-3 variants maybe. -Fnlayson 03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll be sure to do that. I think some of them are already set up to the H-3 Sea King, so we just have to change them. I spent the evening purusing the Coast Guard site for pics, and made a Commons page also. The pic on the Evergreen specs site is gorgeous, and the only non-government type I've seen, but I assume the company has the copyrights. Thanks for finding the specs. The basics are done for the most part, except for the main text. Hopefully I'll get to that this week or next, and we can live then! - BillCJ 04:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to add more specs from the other sources/sites. I put ? by the numbers I didn't change to remind myself. I'll try to do that this week. -Fnlayson 04:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob. ?s are fine since we aren't on the mainspace. Thanks for the help. - BillCJ 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dang, there are still question marks in the Specs. I'll look through Frawley and some other books to try and resolve them. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources

• Russian site about Jolly Green Giant (in English)
• Photos of the Italian Agusta HH-3F (AS-61R) on Aviation.net site

Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 06:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Russian.ee page is in the External links. Thanks. -Fnlayson 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

S-61R number

I'm too familar with Sikorsky's internal model numbers. Does the S-61R number only apply to the CH-3C or was it used for all the variants listed in the article (CH-3C/E, HH-3E, MH-3E, ...)? Thanks. -Fnlayson 22:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have several references that list all those variants under S-61R. To my knowledge, all the -61s with the CH-53-type fuselage were known to the company as S-61Rs. The Agusta-built version of the HH-3F was called the AS-61R. Is there a place in the article that is not clear on this? - BillCJ 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I was leaning that way. In the Variants section under S-61R only the USAF CH-3C is listed. -Fnlayson 23:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I added bullets for the Military variants to demote them, to show they in the S-61R group. -Fnlayson 00:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reformatted it a little with use of doubled ;; and :: - look on article. Piotr Mikołajski 07:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I was trying not to indent the text that much but that works.. -Fnlayson 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Development section

I expanded the 1st paragraph and reworded the other 2 in the Development section based on the russian.ee page. I cut the improved HH-3 part short. A couple more sentences on that would be good. -Fnlayson 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixes

I'd suggest some fixes; there never was an official designation of VH3E or MH3E. The last USAF engine version was the T58-100, which did not advertise higher SHP, but did have higher T5 and Ng limits--gave us much more usable torque at high alt/temp combo's. The engine was rated 1500 SHP. The actual designations of the CH-3B was the six loaned NAVY SH-3s, so I would not call them S61Rs.

If you have verifiable sources for that information, list them here, and I'd be happy to try to find the sources, and add the cited info to the article. I don't know the original source of the text lists, but I do recall having seen the VH-3E and MH3E designations in print before. I'm not claiming they were official tho, and that can be easily noted if the designations were unofficially used. As to the CH-3B, I don't see it listed anywehre in the article at all, so I'm not sure of your point here, unless you're refering to its use on the SH-3 Sea King page. I did the split of this page off ofthat page, and others helped with the rewrite, but I specifically left the CH-3B on that page because I knew it wasn't an S-61R.

Thanks for your comments, and I hope we can add more history in time, especially of the Jolly Greens. There really wasn't anything in the original SH-3 page on these varaints beyond the variants list itself. I had to find the pics myself, plus write the text (along with some other editors). Nothing on Wikipedia is ever finished, so if you have some other thoughts, or some good reliable sources, I'd be happy to have them. - BillCJ 22:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The USAF acquired the 6 CH3Bs (not sure if they were originally SH3As or not), but used initially for familiarization and support of the Texas Towers. Ultimately ended up in Hickham AFB until replaced by HH53s. May not be a S61R, but they are part of the USAF Jolly Green heritage. They were subsequently sold back to the Navy and some were redesignated as some variant of the SH3H or G. Also one or more were sold off to Carson Helicopters and one of them may be the new "Fire King". You might reference the jollygreen.org pages for tail number history. Not sure anyone gets the total production numbers and breakouts correct. The only place you would see the MH3E or VH3E reference is maybe in someones personal notes. The 5 71SOS tails taken to Desert Storm were never redesignated; but they did see some great short notice upgrades enroute to the desert; GPS, FLIR, FLARE/CHAFF and I believe one or two may have had dual ALQ144s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.79.199 (talk • contribs)

Whence the nick?

How did the nickname "Jolly Green Giant" originate? Maikel (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The nickname originated in early Vietnam USAF helo rescue missions, supposedly a pilot described his rescue as being plucked from the jungle by the Jolly Green Giant--of the vegetable fame. H3s were Jolly's and HH53s were the SuperJolly's. Also originates with pararescue. Most rescue crewmembers have Jolly Green feet tatoos.

The entry of the Tunisian AF having 1 HH3E is inaccurate; they were FMS'd 16 total surplus USAF HH3Es and CH3Es in 1994-1996. I believe only two were really CH3s, the others were HH3s without probes. One was subsequently lost due to either a TRB or MRB failure, that was 65-12777.

Eric Greenblatt, jggiant38@comcast.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.20.76 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I think it would be great to name the different films featuring the H-3 helicopter, like RE : Apocalypse or The increduble hulk, often being used as MH-53 look-alikes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.25.216 (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

HH-3E

The number built is different in different parts of the article, the Development says eight built and the variant say 10. Baugher has 14 serial numbers 66-13278 to 66-13290 (13) and 68-8282 (1). All the rest were conversions from the CH-3Es. http://www.jollygreen.org/ is not really clear it has 286, 287, 288 as CH-3Es, 289 as a CH-3E conv to HH-3 and 290 as a HH-3E. Baugher has the batch from 66-13291 has being built as CH-3Es some later conversion. http://www.uswarplanes.net/seaking.html has 14 as Baugher with 26 x CH-3C and 37 x CH-3E converted. Anybody any clearer how many were built as HH-3Es 8, 10 14 or a random number! MilborneOne (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo location

User:FOX 52 where in MOS does it say that the photo should be on the left? Mztourist (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mztourist: see MOS:SANDWICHING regarding staggered images - FOX 52 (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

OK I read it, but the text wasn't sandwiched and the MOS states "Most images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement." So please advise why you moved it back to the left. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

As it's states "left can be used as these are only guidelines, I think it flows better staggered (IMO) - FOX 52 (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it makes it harder to read, I propose that I move the photo down and to the right. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)