Eurocopter, 4 new rotorcraft by 2020, X4, X6, X9, ..
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best way to introduce a new design is to follow up with orders and deliveries, and most and foremost delivering the performance you promise.
Airbus and Bell are selling vaporware.
Airbus and Bell are selling vaporware.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NickLappos-
The S-97 prototype rolled out last Oct. sure is a pretty aircraft, and I hope it performs as good as it looks.
Are there any technical developments being used on the S-97 (beyond those obvious from published photos) that you can publicly discuss? There isn't much on the internet and I didn't find anything in the AHS index. I'd love to learn more about the S-97's unique rotor hub arrangement and drivetrain. Has Sikorsky published any technical papers on the rotor hub or drivetrain that are available to the general public?
The S-97 prototype rolled out last Oct. sure is a pretty aircraft, and I hope it performs as good as it looks.
Are there any technical developments being used on the S-97 (beyond those obvious from published photos) that you can publicly discuss? There isn't much on the internet and I didn't find anything in the AHS index. I'd love to learn more about the S-97's unique rotor hub arrangement and drivetrain. Has Sikorsky published any technical papers on the rotor hub or drivetrain that are available to the general public?
To date the S-97 has the exact same time aloft as the 53K, X4, and 525...not to mention late itself!The S-97 hub and drivetrain are derived from the X2, essentially the same. There are numerous ABC patents that illustrate some details.
It appears, from press photos at least, Sikorsky maybe solved the riddle of the sail fairing that never flew on the X2. I suppose we will have to wait until the Raider actually flies to see if thats the case, as the X2 was always photoed with the fairings installed on the ground as well.
And Nick, a 30,000+lb GW rigid rotor ABC coax is still squarely in the vaporware category. I'm sure you can appreciate the scaling issues between the two; as long as Sikorsky keeps spinning the S-97 into only being a "slight" step from SB-1 I am convinced that they will try to use the Raider as the FVL demo aircraft.
It certainly would be embarrassing when they make the requisite changes to get an ABC up to 30,000lb (rotor spacing) and can only fly 170kt due to the massive drag increase.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it walks like a duck.....
Tough to compete with a European consortium funded by huge sums of interest-free multi-government-backed loans and grants.
VXX, CRH, FVL/JMR, Navy C-2 replacement (V-22), Navy H-60 fleet, Marine H-1 fleet, H-53K, Army TH-67 replacement (new UH-72s) ....... Any questions?
US companies are well taken care of by US gov't backed funding.
For every sole-source contract awarded in the US there are equal numbers awarded in the Eurozone.
What I am referring to are state sponsored industry consortiums that are funded for decades-long pie-in-the sky R&D projects - something which most certainly does not happen on the same scale in the USA. IRAD money is a trickle in comparison, especially considering civilian applications.
Consider NICETRIP, a civilian-specific program funded entirely by government funding. That would be unheard of in the USA.
What I am referring to are state sponsored industry consortiums that are funded for decades-long pie-in-the sky R&D projects - something which most certainly does not happen on the same scale in the USA. IRAD money is a trickle in comparison, especially considering civilian applications.
Consider NICETRIP, a civilian-specific program funded entirely by government funding. That would be unheard of in the USA.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sans,
The US has had plenty of its own civil-funded programs - AGATE, GAP, SATS etc. - though the funding associated with Clean Sky 2 is eye-watering, to say the least ($1.99 Bn).
I wouldn't agree with IRAD being a trickle, though. As we know, Bell spent "roughly $300 million or more" of taxpayers' money on the BA609 (before handing the program to AW), and having seen first-hand a top-tier OEM deciding what to expense against IRAD each year, the word boondoggle comes to mind.
I/C
The US has had plenty of its own civil-funded programs - AGATE, GAP, SATS etc. - though the funding associated with Clean Sky 2 is eye-watering, to say the least ($1.99 Bn).
I wouldn't agree with IRAD being a trickle, though. As we know, Bell spent "roughly $300 million or more" of taxpayers' money on the BA609 (before handing the program to AW), and having seen first-hand a top-tier OEM deciding what to expense against IRAD each year, the word boondoggle comes to mind.
I/C
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NICETRIP
sans- You're right because the "real" money and unlimited revenue stream without any expectation of ROI is in DoD where as I pointed out there is NO shortage of US Gov't subsidization aka: Sole source contracts/Single source solicitations
You can't be suggesting that revenue gained, without the need of expending company resources to win the gov't business (because the award was sole-source or single competitor), doesn't get rolled back into commercial endeavors?
Just look at the open "UH-60 checkbook" the gov't has supplied Sik. and tell me that they haven't rolled any of those $$ into other R&D efforts (including civil S-76D, or S-92) ? ..... and I don't criticize them for doing it either. Revenue should be plowed back into R&D.
WE should really watch how self-righteous WE are about this topic.
Competition in DoD is really a UNICORN. Frequently discussed, but rarely seen......
You can't be suggesting that revenue gained, without the need of expending company resources to win the gov't business (because the award was sole-source or single competitor), doesn't get rolled back into commercial endeavors?
Just look at the open "UH-60 checkbook" the gov't has supplied Sik. and tell me that they haven't rolled any of those $$ into other R&D efforts (including civil S-76D, or S-92) ? ..... and I don't criticize them for doing it either. Revenue should be plowed back into R&D.
WE should really watch how self-righteous WE are about this topic.
Competition in DoD is really a UNICORN. Frequently discussed, but rarely seen......
Well it appears we are in agreement....because every aspect of defense procurement you are bemoaning with the USA occurs in European defense acquisitions just the same.
The only difference is that, in addition to sole source contracts and rolling profits back into products, we see massive, multi-decadal, multi-billion dollar civilian projects that are directly funded by government cheese without the auspices that it isn't just for the socialist-style employment guarantee and industry development to compete with the USA.
Think Boeing vs Airbus. Airbus enjoys the $2 billion investment the Eurozone makes in Cleansky 2. The counter argument is that Boeing enjoys the profits from US tanker contracts, AH-64, F/A-18, etc. Well, Airbus also enjoys the same funding from their own domestic military contracts like the A400, C295, Eurofighter, etc with the same sort of shenanigans going in contract award.
The only difference is that, in addition to sole source contracts and rolling profits back into products, we see massive, multi-decadal, multi-billion dollar civilian projects that are directly funded by government cheese without the auspices that it isn't just for the socialist-style employment guarantee and industry development to compete with the USA.
Think Boeing vs Airbus. Airbus enjoys the $2 billion investment the Eurozone makes in Cleansky 2. The counter argument is that Boeing enjoys the profits from US tanker contracts, AH-64, F/A-18, etc. Well, Airbus also enjoys the same funding from their own domestic military contracts like the A400, C295, Eurofighter, etc with the same sort of shenanigans going in contract award.
Hmmm Sans Anhedral.This argument is a bit chalk and cheese.What you haven't factored in are the huge orders guaranteed by the U.S. government through direct purchases and subsidised FMS ,compared with Europe. Take the Apache versus Tiger for example or the H-60 family versus NH90.....huge profits for the U.S. industry ,much of which incidentally they have failed in the past to reinvest in R and D.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heli_1 - couldn't have said it better myself
Sans-I believe you were the one who started the conversation bemoaning European subsidization, and now you are simply rationalizing the same "subsidizing-like" activities by the US government. The field is level from that perspective.
Why I said "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."
New AF-1 is another bright shining example. A simple trade study was all the USAF did before deciding that Boeing wins...... I believe the P.M. of the UK flies in a 777. Why not at least challenge Boeing so the taxpayers get the best deal possible?
Does anyone doubt that competition is best for the consumer in a free market?
Sans-I believe you were the one who started the conversation bemoaning European subsidization, and now you are simply rationalizing the same "subsidizing-like" activities by the US government. The field is level from that perspective.
Why I said "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."
New AF-1 is another bright shining example. A simple trade study was all the USAF did before deciding that Boeing wins...... I believe the P.M. of the UK flies in a 777. Why not at least challenge Boeing so the taxpayers get the best deal possible?
Does anyone doubt that competition is best for the consumer in a free market?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Airbus quote:
There was a highly disliked and delinquent kid from a troubled family background, at our local village school, who was like that.
Our latest offering will be in a class by itself. Literally.
And the A-Star has unceremoniously been renamed the H125, among other renaming.
Airbus Helicopters Unveils H160 Medium Twin | Business Aviation: Aviation International News
Airbus Helicopters Unveils H160 Medium Twin | Business Aviation: Aviation International News
EC120 Colibri is now H120
AS350 B3e Ecureuil/AStar is now H125
AS355 Ecureuil/TwinStar is now AS355
EC130 is now H130
EC135 is now H135
EC145 is now H145
EC155 is now H155
AS365 Dauphin is now AS365
EC175 is now H175
AS332 Super Puma is now AS332
EC225 Super Puma is now H225
AS350 B3e Ecureuil/AStar is now H125
AS355 Ecureuil/TwinStar is now AS355
EC130 is now H130
EC135 is now H135
EC145 is now H145
EC155 is now H155
AS365 Dauphin is now AS365
EC175 is now H175
AS332 Super Puma is now AS332
EC225 Super Puma is now H225
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Near the source of insanity
Posts: 125
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I thought there was a logical system behind the naming conventions at Eurocopter... 
I would've expected that a Civilian 6 Ton Twin would be designated as EC165 (or AH165 for that matter...). And designating the AS-350 as H125 would make it a 2-ton civilian twin.
Oh, the French...
I would've expected that a Civilian 6 Ton Twin would be designated as EC165 (or AH165 for that matter...). And designating the AS-350 as H125 would make it a 2-ton civilian twin.Oh, the French...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This helipcopter was planned to have a much more radical cockpit and FBW. But it would have be ready for service by 2018.
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/defau...?itok=hcxxz2fC
A few years back new Airbus Helicopter management decided getting to market early had priority. Specially the Agusta Westland helicopters proved very succesfull in this segment.
Operators weren't really demanding the new cockpit / FBW so they let it go to speed up the project.
What will be interesting is if it will really be more quiet, fast and comfortable. It's a head turner anyway.
They have been testing the quiet rotor technology for some years & it seems to really make a difference.
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/defau...?itok=hcxxz2fC
A few years back new Airbus Helicopter management decided getting to market early had priority. Specially the Agusta Westland helicopters proved very succesfull in this segment.
Operators weren't really demanding the new cockpit / FBW so they let it go to speed up the project.
What will be interesting is if it will really be more quiet, fast and comfortable. It's a head turner anyway.
They have been testing the quiet rotor technology for some years & it seems to really make a difference.
Last edited by keesje; 4th Mar 2015 at 08:39. Reason: add noise youtube
And I thought there was a logical system behind the naming conventions at Eurocopter... I would've expected that a Civilian 6 Ton Twin would be designated as EC165 (or AH165 for that matter...). And designating the AS-350 as H125 would make it a 2-ton civilian twin.
Oh, the French...
I would've expected that a Civilian 6 Ton Twin would be designated as EC165 (or AH165 for that matter...). And designating the AS-350 as H125 would make it a 2-ton civilian twin.Oh, the French...
Hello Bravo73,
The EC naming convention is over.
We are now in the "H Generation" and that's a mess.
The EC145T2 is now the H145, logical.
But .... the EC145e is now the EC145 ! Why not the H145e ?!
And the AS365N3e is now the AS365N3e !! Same thing for the AS332C1e !!
The EC naming convention is over.
We are now in the "H Generation" and that's a mess.
The EC145T2 is now the H145, logical.
But .... the EC145e is now the EC145 ! Why not the H145e ?!
And the AS365N3e is now the AS365N3e !! Same thing for the AS332C1e !!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Near the source of insanity
Posts: 125
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Bravo73: Saw. Made me happy to see that I'm not the only nerd around
I really begin to wonder what kind of person is running Airbus Helicopter's marketing department (I'll never get used to that bloated new name...). Eurocopter had such a cool ring to its name... and now this pathetic mess with the new random naming conventions.
Perhaps they should invest all this energy and money into working on their terribly slow product support
I really begin to wonder what kind of person is running Airbus Helicopter's marketing department (I'll never get used to that bloated new name...). Eurocopter had such a cool ring to its name... and now this pathetic mess with the new random naming conventions.
Perhaps they should invest all this energy and money into working on their terribly slow product support
"They have been testing the quiet rotor technology for some years & it seems to really make a difference"
But what is the point if they keep on using the noisy fenestron?
On the 120/130 variants it sure is quiet but on a N3/155 the thing seems to make more noise then the main rotor.... Maybe that's just me
RP
But what is the point if they keep on using the noisy fenestron?
On the 120/130 variants it sure is quiet but on a N3/155 the thing seems to make more noise then the main rotor.... Maybe that's just me
RP