Talk:Sikorsky H-5

H-5?

Wondering what the reference is for the R-5 being designated as H-5? The only H-5 I can find recorded is the YOH-5. --04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I too thought this was odd. H-5 is the British name, yet it was a American design, and mostly sold to the American military as the R-5 Larek (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the British the H-5 was the American designation from 1948 onwards when all surviving R-5 aircraft were changed to H-5. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted the move as clearly H-5 was the US designation which is all explained in the article, you will need to start a move request. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Only after 1947, R-5 is the common name, example United States Army Aviation Museum calls theirs a R-5, and current hits on google 'Sikorsky "R-5"' is 311K where 'Sikorsky "H-5"'is less at 278k, that alone should justify the original name.Larek (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As the move due to it being a British name has been challenged you still need to gain a consensus for a move. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just out of interest the United States Army Aviation Museum also has a H-5 [1]. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As the move due to it being a British name has been challenged you still need to gain a consensus for a move. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I admit to being wrong on the British bit, however I still think the move is justified, and as for consensus, isn't it currently 2 (me and '07) to 1 (MilborneOne)?

And There is constancy, both the R-4 and R-6 are named R-# even though R-6's re later renamed H-6

And The Museums listed call it a R-5 or the specific variant name like YR-5A or S-51, None on the list have a "H-6" on their wiki pages

And The Google count.... Which now says 810k for H-6 ???? I now lose this point Larek (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct on the United States Army Aviation Museum, good catch Larek (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep at H-5; the R-4 and R-6 are at R-4 and R-6 because both models primarily served in the 'R'-designated period before 1948, whereas the R-5/H-5 is best known for its Korean War service, at which time it was H- designated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the 'R' originally stood for 'rotary' winged as the helicopter had not been around long enough to warrant a separate category at the time. Previous 'R' aircraft had been autogyros such as the Kellett KD-1. Later the 'H' helicopter category was introduced, at which point the designations were changed for helicopter types already in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sikorsky H-5/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

=Start= Born2flie: It was assessed as Start already, I just get tired of the tall class indications when there are no comments. --04:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I don't know if I'd rate this High-importance. What is the reason for this rating? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sikorsky H-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110606061937/http://www.rtaf.mi.th/museum/BLDG5-2.HTM to http://www.rtaf.mi.th/museum/BLDG5-2.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs clearer distinction of original S-48 models from later S-51 models.

The original versions of the R-5, including the YR-5A, R-5A, R-5D, and HO2S-1, all came from Sikorsky's S-48 model, while the later S-51 model was the basis for the H-5F, H-5G, H-5H, and HO3S-1. There are distinct differences between these two models, the most obvious of which is the landing gear configuration: two forward wheels and a tail wheel on the S-48 models (with a small nose wheel added to the R-5D) versus two rear wheels and a nose wheel on the S-51 models. The window layout is also distinctly different between the two models. You can see the difference if you compare the infobox picture (a YR-5A at the USAF museum) with the other pictures in the article. I'll try to make the distinction a bit clearer in the article. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think I've managed to better distinguish the S-48 versions from the S-51 versions. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sikorsky H-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161105031344/http://www.armyaviationmuseum.org/index.php/museum/aircraft-collection/16-aircraft-collection/65-rotary-wing to http://www.armyaviationmuseum.org/index.php/museum/aircraft-collection/16-aircraft-collection/65-rotary-wing
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207214641/http://www.dna.gov.ar/DIVULGAC/HELO.HTM to http://www.dna.gov.ar/DIVULGAC/HELO.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Carry me

Okay, the H-5 had greater payload capacity than the R-4. What was it? Since neither this page, nor the R-4 page, ever mentions it for either of them. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1951/52 gives a "disposable load" of 1505 lb for an S-51 with composite, 58 ft diameter rotor blades, or 1695 lb with all metal blades (59 foot diameter) - the empty and loaded weights don't quite line up with those currently quoted in the specifications, although the 58 ft rotor diameter suggests composite blades.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thx. That looks like fuel, stores, & all. Polmar's Military Helicopters of the World (my go-to, because I have it ;p ) doesn't say anything... :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)