Boeing FARA
Thread Starter
Boeing FARA
Boeing is going to reveal their entry to Future Attack Recon Aircraft
https://www.boeing.com/defense/FARA/...efense#/videos
cheers
https://www.boeing.com/defense/FARA/...efense#/videos
cheers
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 26th Feb 2020 at 09:46. Reason: Edit url
I see a six bladed head.
I see (I think) a tail rotor.
I see (I think) one engine.
I see the kind of open/fold internal-to-external weapons stations that were on Comanche.
I wonder: is this machine being made by Boeing Philly or Boeing Mesa?
Lastly: I wonder if they'll take the leap to LHX and build a single pilot (at last) scout helicopter.
I see (I think) a tail rotor.
I see (I think) one engine.
I see the kind of open/fold internal-to-external weapons stations that were on Comanche.
I wonder: is this machine being made by Boeing Philly or Boeing Mesa?
Lastly: I wonder if they'll take the leap to LHX and build a single pilot (at last) scout helicopter.
For CTR:
I finally looked at all of the videos, and yeah, I see what you are talking about.
For Sultan:
What are you talking about?
Are you telling us that Bell and Boeing are in partnership on FARA, or are you just foaming at the mouth again?
I finally looked at all of the videos, and yeah, I see what you are talking about.
For Sultan:
What are you talking about?
Are you telling us that Bell and Boeing are in partnership on FARA, or are you just foaming at the mouth again?
LW wrote:
For Sultan:
What are you talking about?
Are you telling us that Bell and Boeing are in partnership on FARA[/QUOTE]
No. My comment was obviously referring to the fact that it is nearly identical to the Bell offering unveiled 5 or so months ago. Try to keep up.
For Sultan:
What are you talking about?
Are you telling us that Bell and Boeing are in partnership on FARA[/QUOTE]
No. My comment was obviously referring to the fact that it is nearly identical to the Bell offering unveiled 5 or so months ago. Try to keep up.
Your incoherece is at least consistent.
Iif you bother to look at all of the concept art provided in detail: no, not identical.
This one's concept art also has a pusher prop. (I'd like to see the final thing IRL ... sounds like a complicated beast)
It is not unlikely that differing designs would have a number of similarities, given that they are aiming to meet the same requirements document.
(And Boeing likely still has the files on all of that Comanche development ...)
Bell and Boeing’s FARA Offerings Nearly Identical?
Take a close look again at the Boeing offering for FARA. You may also wish to edit your response to LF.
Boeing has six main rotor blades to Bell’s four.
Boeing has what appears to be a rigid rotor compared to Bell’s articulated rotor
Boeing has an open anti-torque tail rotor while Bell has a ducted fan.
Most significantly, Boeing has a pusher propeller, while Bell has a wing for high speed flight.
Yes they both have tandem seating and internal weapons carriage on the sides. But so did the Comanche.
Seems like the Army has a broad spectrum of configurations to pick from.
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out how ridiculous it would seem for Boeing to expect to achieve 180 kt cruise with a tall, open, unfaired hub and controls hanging out in the breeze as shown.
Similarly, both the mast diameter and blade roots look extremely paltry for a rigid rotor.
Similarly, both the mast diameter and blade roots look extremely paltry for a rigid rotor.
Aside from having a pusher prop and a tail rotor, the rest of what is shown probably deliberately disguises details of the design. Partly to keep competitors from taking shots at the design, partly to keep proprietary design hidden as long as possible.
Here's an enhanced picture from the video also on Jackonicko's post on the Military Aviation Forum which gives a better view of the tail configuration.
I wonder if Sikorsky has checked to see if anyone stole any of their Black Hawk tail booms...
I wonder if Sikorsky has checked to see if anyone stole any of their Black Hawk tail booms...
Last edited by Commando Cody; 27th Feb 2020 at 21:26.
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out how ridiculous it would seem for Boeing to expect to achieve 180 kt cruise with a tall, open, unfaired hub and controls hanging out in the breeze as shown.
Similarly, both the mast diameter and blade roots look extremely paltry for a rigid rotor.
Similarly, both the mast diameter and blade roots look extremely paltry for a rigid rotor.
From Wikipedia:
"Lockheed designed the Cheyenne as a compound helicopter, which combines a helicopter with fixed-wing features for increased performance, usually speed. The design included features such as a rigid main rotor, low-mounted wings, and a pusher propeller. Thrust was provided by a pusher propeller at the rear of the aircraft. " Boeing is proposing an advanced Cheyenne, combining a tail rotor with a pusher prop. Bell an advanced Comanche. Sikorsky is not a lock here.
"Lockheed designed the Cheyenne as a compound helicopter, which combines a helicopter with fixed-wing features for increased performance, usually speed. The design included features such as a rigid main rotor, low-mounted wings, and a pusher propeller. Thrust was provided by a pusher propeller at the rear of the aircraft. " Boeing is proposing an advanced Cheyenne, combining a tail rotor with a pusher prop. Bell an advanced Comanche. Sikorsky is not a lock here.
The Hidden Cards
The hidden cards in this FARA competition are political influence and the military need to maintain the engineering capability of three helicopter manufacturers.
Having recently developed new aircraft, both Sikorsky and Bell both have strong engineering departments capable of clean sheet designs.
Sustaining engineering is far from being able to design a new aircraft from scratch. It has been over a quarter century since Boeing engineering partnered with Sikorsky on the Comanche, and with Bell on the Osprey. Forty five years have past since Boeing (actually Hughes) designed the Apache on their own.
If next month Boeing Vertol does not win the opportunity to design and build a FARA prototype aircraft, I don’t see their future as very promising.
Having recently developed new aircraft, both Sikorsky and Bell both have strong engineering departments capable of clean sheet designs.
Sustaining engineering is far from being able to design a new aircraft from scratch. It has been over a quarter century since Boeing engineering partnered with Sikorsky on the Comanche, and with Bell on the Osprey. Forty five years have past since Boeing (actually Hughes) designed the Apache on their own.
If next month Boeing Vertol does not win the opportunity to design and build a FARA prototype aircraft, I don’t see their future as very promising.
Last edited by CTR; 28th Feb 2020 at 18:51. Reason: Spelling
The hidden cards in this FARA competition are political influence and the military need to maintain the engineering capability of three helicopter manufacturers.
Having recently developed new aircraft, both Sikorsky and Bell both have strong engineering departments capable of clean sheet designs.
Sustaining engineering is far from being able to design a new aircraft from scratch. It has been over a quarter century since Boeing engineering partnered with Sikorsky on the Comanche, and with Bell on the Osprey. Forty five years have past since Boeing (actually Hughes) designed the Apache on their own.
If next month Boeing Vertol does not win the opportunity to design and build a FARA prototype aircraft, I don’t see their future as very promising.
Having recently developed new aircraft, both Sikorsky and Bell both have strong engineering departments capable of clean sheet designs.
Sustaining engineering is far from being able to design a new aircraft from scratch. It has been over a quarter century since Boeing engineering partnered with Sikorsky on the Comanche, and with Bell on the Osprey. Forty five years have past since Boeing (actually Hughes) designed the Apache on their own.
If next month Boeing Vertol does not win the opportunity to design and build a FARA prototype aircraft, I don’t see their future as very promising.
Simply adding thrust power with a pusher prop to an articulated rotor would only be useful if you could keep MR tip speeds manageable, which would be rather tricky without a wing to provide lift at a necessarily slower Nr.
The low quality cartoons also don't lend much confidence to the design maturity. If you're not going to show something robust and marketable, why show anything at all.
Keep in mind that Boeing has, IIRC, never put a helicopter of their own design into production. The CH-46/47 were designed by Vertol, which was a separate company and were inherited when Boeing bought the company (as with H-6 and AH-64). AFAIK, the only helicopters of their own design that even flew were the three YUH-61 prototypes and one Model 179 (civilian derivative).
Agreed, that was my point. CTR above put a rigid rotor on the list of Boeing FARA features. I don't see it.
Except the Cheyenne had a significant size lift offset wing, which the Boeing design clearly does not.
Simply adding thrust power with a pusher prop to an articulated rotor would only be useful if you could keep MR tip speeds manageable, which would be rather tricky without a wing to provide lift at a necessarily slower Nr.
The low quality cartoons also don't lend much confidence to the design maturity. If you're not going to show something robust and marketable, why show anything at all.
Except the Cheyenne had a significant size lift offset wing, which the Boeing design clearly does not.
Simply adding thrust power with a pusher prop to an articulated rotor would only be useful if you could keep MR tip speeds manageable, which would be rather tricky without a wing to provide lift at a necessarily slower Nr.
The low quality cartoons also don't lend much confidence to the design maturity. If you're not going to show something robust and marketable, why show anything at all.
Regarding the low quality cartoons, this is just a tease to pique interest. They used to do this when the new car models came out. You see this in movie trailers all the time. In the trailers for the 2014 Godzilla movie (which was actually pretty good) you got flashes of, or saw parts of, but there was never a good shot of Godzilla himself. Boeing says they'll reveal all in March.
