Originally Posted by
Zionstrat2
In what way? Up to this point, I had understood that Sikorsky had done a good job putting together an incremental step that could have done the job, however, Bell shifted the model for an entirely different more advanced approach. What did Sikorsky miss with a conventional approach?
I'm extremely happy that Bell has succeeded because I was concerned that the army may be too short-sited and go with a very conventional approach, as they did with the Cheyenne many years ago... I I'm happy because I believe that Bell's speed and range are tremendous advantage and the teething pain should be less due to the osprey experience.
One could hardly call X2 conventional. It is an advanced concept that at least for now seems to be "a bridge too far". As one wag put it, Bell was able to do more with six blades than Sikorsky could with 16. It'll be interesting to see what the tests for FARA show since there will be a case of a new technology competing with an advanced, but conventional, rotorcraft .