Transport Atlas

How The World Moves
Sign In
Text size
100%
Theme
Vehicle

Sikorsky S-73

Lighter-Than-Air Craft and Rotorcraft

The Sikorsky S-73 was a proposed heavy lift helicopter that Sikorsky Aircraft designed to meet the United States Army requirement of 1970 for a Heavy Lift Helicopter able to carry 45,000 pounds, more than twice the capacity of Sikorsky most powerful helicopter then flying. It was an enlarged version of the CH-54 and S-64 with a simplified single main rotor driven by three General Electric TF34-58 turboshaft engines of 21,000 horsepower combined, and a crew of five working from a forward cockpit with push buttons in place of the usual cyclic stick and collective lever. A rear cabin would have held 12 combat troops. Sikorsky submitted the design in February 1971, and in May the Army chose the Boeing Vertol XCH-62, ending the S-73 programme.

Facts
Year
1971 1
Engine Class
Turboshaft 1
Status
Design only (never built) 1
Mass (kg)
26,762 1
Maximum Mass (kg)
53,524 1
Connections

Exemplifies

Source Sikorsky S-73 (Wikipedia)

Of Make

Source Sikorsky S-73 (Wikipedia)
Sources
1. Sikorsky S-73 (Wikipedia)
  • Lead, design submission
    Sikorsky submitted their design in February 1971
  • Lead, builder
    The Sikorsky S-73 was a proposed aircraft design
  • Lead, engine class
    powered by three General Electric TF34-58 turboshaft engines
  • Specifications
    Empty weight: 59,000 lb (26,762 kg)
  • Specifications, maximum take-off weight
    Max takeoff weight: 118,000 lb (53,524 kg)
  • Lead, origin
    the United States Army requirement in 1970 for a Heavy Lift Helicopter
  • Of Make: Sikorsky Aircraft, Lead, maker
    an enlarged version of the successful CH-54/S-64
  • In Group: Military Transport and Utility Helicopters, Lead, type of aircraft
    Heavy Lift Helicopter (HLH) capable of carrying 45,000 lb
  • Exemplifies: Helicopter Transport, Lead, rotorcraft
    Heavy Lift Helicopter (HLH) capable of carrying 45,000 lb
View the Source
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.