|
Description
| Manufacturer: | Boeing/Vertol | |
| Base model: | H-62 | |
| Designation: | CH-62 | |
| Nickname: | HLH Project | |
| Designation System: | U.S. Air Force | |
| Designation Period: | 1948-Present | |
| Basic role: | Helicopter | |
| Modified Mission: | Transport | |
| Status: | Experimental | |
Specifications
| Not Yet Available |
Examples of this type may be found at
| Museum | City | State |
| United States Army Aviation Museum | Ozark | Alabama |
CH-62 on display
United States Army Aviation Museum |
Recent comments by our visitors
| John Ward Easton, MD | I would appreciate it if the original submittal 29348 could be replaced by the corrected version below. 4 typos were corrected. (Truely, protoype,XH-62, miltary. Thank you.
It is truly unfortunate that the XCH-62 was essentially abandoned in place. While I was in the Washington Headquarters, Rotorcraft Technology Office in the early 1980s, NASA made a specific effort to take advantage of the opportunity to utilize the large rotorcraft's unique components produced under the terminated U.S. Army Heavy Lift Helicopter program. The primary components available in proper storage included large transmissions, large airframe, advanced flight control system, rotor system and propulsion system. A phased research program plan was prepared, which envisioned progressing to assembly of the finished prototype vehicle and proceeding to flight test to validate the technology advances embodied in the XCH-62 design. The first step was funded to conduct testing of the large transmission system to acquire unique data to validate advanced gear design methodology. As the transmission phase was completed, the NASA funding support failed to materialize in a declining aeronautics program environment and the XCH-62 assets were terminally destined for oblivion. Ironically, three decades later the military is still laboring under direction to give birth to an ambitious multi-service Joint Heavy Lift Program (a.k.a. Joint Theater Lift, etc.)- still without a proven technology base. 08/28/2010 @ 07:15 [ref: 29479] |
| John Ward Easton, MD | It is truely unfortunate that the XCH-62 was essentially abandoned in place. While I was in the Washington Headquarters, Rotorcraft Technology Office in the early 1980s, NASA made a specific effort to take advantage of the opportunity to utilize the large rotorcraft's unique components produced under the terminated U.S. Army Heavy Lift Helicopter program. The primary components available in proper storage included large transmissions, large airframe, advanced flight control system, rotor system and propulsion system. A phased research program plan was prepared, which envisioned progressing to assembly of the finished protoype vehicle and proceeding to flight test to validate the technology advances embodied in the XH-62 design.
The first step was funded to conduct testing of the large transmission system to acquire unique data to validate advanced gear design methodology. As the transmission phase was completed, the NASA funding support failed to materialize in a declining aeronautics program environment and the XCH-62 assets were terminally destined for oblivion. Ironically, three decades later the miltary is still laboring under direction to give birth to an ambitious multi-service Joint Heavy Lift Program (a.k.a. Joint Theater Lift, etc.)- still without a proven technology base. 08/23/2010 @ 14:10 [ref: 29348] |
| Max K. Jacksonville, FL | I first saw the HLH in a book on the mid 70s and then in person in the late 70s. I saw once more before it was destroyed. Like so many others I would have loved to have seen it fly or at least be preserved but upon listening to the reasons for it's destruction I had to agree.
First off it was never an Army helicopter. In fact it was never a helicopter a all. It was an empty, partial airframe that never had a cockpit, engines, transmissions, or a rear rotor system. It was dropped in the museum's lap because it was at Ft. Rucker when the project was dropped. As is decayed in the corrosively humid Alabama weather it was getting so corroded and weak that it was a danger just standing on those giant legs. Although I would love to have seen someone save it was a money pit the museum could ill afford. The museum also lost the Russian helo (that a Cuban pilot defected in) to the Alabama weather & corrosion. The argument was made that it was a historical aircraft but the reality was that it was not an Army aircraft and it was falling apart. We all would love to have seen the HLH fly. That giant, majestic airframe offered so much potential and was so elegant in her own monstrous way. But in the end it was just a reflection of a grand idea and it is that idea that we all really lament losing. 12/30/2009 @ 19:15 [ref: 25494] |
| Max K. Jacksonville, FL | I first saw the HLH in a book on the mid 70s and then in person in the late 70s. I saw once more before it was destroyed. Like so many others I would have loved to have seen it fly or at least be preserved but upon listening to the reasons for it's destruction I had to agree.
First off it was never an Army helicopter. In fact it was never a helicopter a all. It was an empty, partial airframe that never had a cockpit, engines, transmissions, or a rear rotor system. It was dropped in the museum's lap because it was at Ft. Rucker when the project was dropped. As is decayed in the corrosively humid Alabama weather it was getting so corroded and weak that it was a danger just standing on those giant legs. Although I would love to have seen someone save it was a money pit the museum could ill afford. The museum also lost the Russian helo (that a Cuban pilot defected in) to the Alabama weather & corrosion. The argument was made that it was a historical aircraft but the reality was that it was not an Army aircraft and it was falling apart. We all would love to have seen the HLH fly. That giant, majestic airframe offered so much potential and was so elegant in her own monstrous way. But in the end it was just a reflection of a grand idea and it is that idea that we all really lament losing. 12/30/2009 @ 19:14 [ref: 25493] |
| Shane M , UT | While at flight school I would stop and look at the CH-62. I was amazed at it's size and wished they would have finished it; it was my favorite aircraft on the lot. I happen to be back at Rucker driving to a class when I saw the Track-hoe take the first bit. I pulled over in shock; I couldn't believe they would destroy a piece of history like that. WHY??? It wasn't hurting anything. I wish it was still around. 02/02/2009 @ 11:50 [ref: 23617] |
| Robert Enterprise, AL | I worked at the museum as a volunteer when the CH-62 came in. I saw alot of the parts that came in with the airframe.
I, like so many of you, would like to have kept the CH-62 around, however the airframe was never completed. Most of the fairings were fabricated at the museum using fiberglass and very thin gauge sheetmetal. I went inside the fuselage and up to the cockpit. There was very little work done on the inside at the factory. Also, the museum had to fake a complete rotorhead (the one on the back) because only one was made. Plus the helicopter was too big to fit inside any of the available museum buildings, so it had to stay outside. Rather than complain about what was lost, save what is available. Make donations to your aviation museums' new building funds so that this won't happen to anything else. Steven Maxham and I never saw eye-to-eye on alot of things, but the CH-62 would have been a money pit to try to save. The best way to save the CH-62 would have been if the program was never cancelled. 09/27/2007 @ 09:09 [ref: 18025] |
| F. White GSO, NC | That was around the time they were moving the rotting aircraft from the fenced lot out to the new display area. The fact has already been established the XCH-62 had been retaining water for years and well into rotting herself, now, hook a tow bar to the nose gear of the beast and try moving it.... what do you think's going to happen?
I'm sure they were as careful as they knew to be, but you never can tell exactly when an aircraft is going to break in half, right? *they didn't think that would happen* Yet there it lay. In it's condition, repairing it would mean a rebuild... a rebuild of a replica? They couldn't move it and they couldn't fix it, what else was left? But who knows, can anyone confirm the disposition of the pieces? 06/02/2007 @ 20:16 [ref: 16716] |
| Shawn Carmody Taylor, TX | I'd love to hear what the reason was for destroying a big part of Army Aviation history like that!!! I hope the moron(s) in question at least have a decent excuse for why this was done. 11/01/2006 @ 12:58 [ref: 14631] |
| Shawn Carmody Taylor, TX | I'd love to hear what the reason was for destroying a big part of Army Aviation history like that!!! I hope the moron(s) in question at least have a decent excuse for why this was done. 11/01/2006 @ 12:58 [ref: 14630] |
| Tom , AL | The helicopter was neat to see, however the comments by the curator were quite true. Up close one could see that it was compltely rotten and ready to fall apart at any moment. Perhaps 20 years ago if it had been taken care of, then it would have been worth saving. It was un-movable and practically fell apart all by itself. 10/26/2006 @ 17:29 [ref: 14581] |
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors
