Originally Posted by
SplineDrive
The tiltrotor is obviously the more mature design concept, hence my position that the Sikorsky Boeing team, despite their theoretical resources, can be viewed as the underdog.
Spline,
Theoretical? We are not talking "Alternate Truths". The financial capital and engineering bandwidth of the SB>1 team is a well documented fact. They are part of the two biggest military contractors in the world!
Sikorsky and Boeing project management have stated that technical issues are not causing the delay. Are they lying like Sultan thinks? Well they provided an alternate truth last December when they stated they were on schedule.
But look at the facts presented clearly. I agree that tiltrotor flight technology is more proven than for the X-2. But what does that have to do with failure to meet schedule to build a demonstration aircraft?
It is once reaching flight test that the tiltrotor will have an advantage.
Both aircraft have advanced composite structures, FBW technology and complex propulsion systems. In the race up to flight test both aircraft had the same challenges.
The Defiant is late because the tremendous resources of Sikorsky and Boeing were either not allocated or mismanaged. I would have a lot more respect for the management at both SN>1 companies if the just came out and said "We screwed up!" Instead of "Things are not going as quickly as we would like".
Great engineering and capabilities on the SB>1 team. I put the onus on their management.