XH-59B is this available from NASA via technology transfer?

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.

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?

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.

Need info on the XH-59 parts and maintenance also info on howmthe acft compairs with the S-76 major components

To answer the question where a XH-59 is located, we have one at the Army Aviation Museum at Fort Rucker.

your story under the picture is all screwed up. I worked on this aircraft fot 5 years.

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.

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.

why 3 engine? what is the range? skorsky x2 has a 1 engine and same speed and 1300km range.

I like the air craft its a good and i am reading a air crafting this is a very good thank you

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...

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.

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.

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.