Sweet shots! sounds a lot like the night my family was eating outside on our deck 3 years ago and a hot air balloon comes over about 10 feet above roof top and lands in our backyard...  

I maybe wrong but the HH-53 is a Sikorsky HH-53 “Super Jolly Green Giant”



This looks more like a Westland Wessex 60-



???

Quote:

So who designed it first? Westland or Sikorsky? And which of these companies designed the Sea King first too?

Your quite correct Doug. After a bit closer look....it appears to be a Sikorsky S-58.

http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/SikorskyS-58-01

http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/SikorskyS-58-02

http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/SikorskyS-58-07

http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/SikorskyS-58-13
Note the UH-34D Choctaw that is in front of the S-58.

Actually, I believe it to be a H-34 G


Note Exhausts



Both these pics are of a H-34 G

All these different designations for basically the same type confuse me.

If you look closely you will notice the nose of the one in question is rounded. This is typical of the S-55 which was originally piston engined although there might have been later gas-turbined developments. The mesh covering the large air intake above the nose is plainly visible & typical for a piston engined type. I think the Westland Whirlwind had a single exhaust pipe rather than the triple version shown in your latest shots of the H-34 G. If I remember correctly the S-58 (Wessex or whatever else you wish to call it) was gas-turbine powered, hence the elongated nose & dual air intakes plus the much larger diameter exhaust. The layout depends on the engine make & type. Not sure if I'm correct but I always thought the S-58 (Wessex) was basically the final gas-turbined development of the S-55 (Whirlwind).

Sikorsky S-55 Chicksaw
First World's certified commercial transport helicopter (1951)
The S-55 was also build with license in Great Britain by Westland as Whirlwind , in France by Sud-Est and in Japan by Mitsubishi. The whole production reaches near 1300 units.

During their early years, the naval designation was HO4S and the variant of the US marines were the HRS-1 , HRS-2 and HRS-3 before the normalization to the H-19 family.
A later variant called S-55T was turbine powered with 1 * 840 hp AirResearch TSE-331

UH-19B :
Engines: piston powered : 1 * 800 hp Wright R-1-300-3
Top Speed: 180 km/h
Cruise Speed: 146 km/h
Range: 579 km
Weight: Empty: 2381 kg -- Max: 3583
Rotor Span: 16.15 m
Length: 12.88 m
Height: 4.06 m
Disc Area: 204.95 m2

Sikorsky S-58 Choctaw
Country Of Origin: USA

Designation: Medium-lift utility helicopter
Aircraft Crew: Two pilots and crew chief
Transport Capacity: 16 passengers

Aircraft Dimensions:   
Length: 47 ft 3 in (14.4 m)
Rotor Size: 56 ft (17.1 m)
Height: 15 ft 11 in (4.8 m)

Aircraft Weights:   
Empty: 7,577 lb (3,437 kg)
Max T/O: 13,000 lb (5,896 kg)

Aircraft Performance:   
Max Speed: 138 mph (222 kmh)
Range: 260 nm (481 km)
Powerplant: One Pratt Et Whitney Canada
PT6T-3 Twin Pac turboshaft
Power: 1,800 shp (1,342 kW)
Payload: N/A

Designations
S-58: Sikorsky model number
HSS-1: U.S. Navy Anti-Submarine Helicopter (named Seabat)
HUS-1: U.S. Marine Corps Utility Helicopter (named Seahorse)
H-34: U.S. Army Helicopter (named Choctaw) This designation was also used by the other U.S. services after 1962.
Wessex: Turbine powered version built by Westland (UK)

Quote:


I think that may be too much of a generalisation as I think the S-58s were radial powered too (See the H-34 above...).

The other main difference with the S-55 and S-58 is the rear fuselage/tail boom, high set on the 55 (trying very hard not to say Whirlwind!)  and large and chunky on the 58 (trying very hard not to say Wessex!)...

Until today I hadn't noticed how similar they were...

Quote:


Quite. Must have been quite a tedious job shuffling back and forth all day...

Charlie

I'm more of a plane-freak myself, so I don't know a lot about helicopters, can you tell?  

I found (what I thought was) the model for FS 2004 so I assumed it was the same thing. Anyway, lots of good info in this thread to educate me  

I am also intrigued by the repetiveness of this job. Its one the thing to takeoff, fly, then land an hour or more later, but this guy had to constantly be considering the ground, and lining up everything right for 4-5 solid hours.

P.S. I found the website of the transport company: http://www.5state.com/