Says the shill for the company who cannot and will not build a large helicopter. Your input is noted.

How's that vaporware bird doing, amigo?
I refer to the 525, which is doing "flight test" in a simulator.

Let us know if it ever flies.

Sultan,

Your history and memory are both quite fuzzy.

The Osprey is neither "new" nor "revolutionary" but is itself a DERIVATIVE with its roots firmly based in the 1950's. We have been through this many times before with you. Would you mind keeping up with the discussion and not try to describe the situation to suit yourself over and over....something that is itself nothing new or revolutionary.

Bell flew the XV-3 from 1953-1966. Your Osprey is a DERIVATIVE of that if you care to check it.

Boudreaux

You are being silly.

The 53 (which I think is fantastic and we should have bought incidentally) has many variants. One of these is the K. It is last in a long line of development of the 53 series. It is thus a derivative.

To suggest that the V22 is a derivative of the XV-3 is imbecilic.

A descendent, yes, in much the same way that a 53 is the descendent of that first sikorsky helicopter he flew wearing the hat.

Have all the arguments you want about which is better, bigger, faster, more cost effective etc, but don't be fatuous.

So if it's the King Stallion, it will be ripe for the nickname Foo....

Tourist,

However you wish to define "Derivative" is your business.

That the V-22 is directly based upon research done on the XV-3, XV-15, and projects done to overcome problems with the design of Tilt Rotor Aircraft is not debatable as it most assuredly is.

If we can say the UH-1 Huey is derived from the Bell 47, we can most assuredly say the same about the Osprey and its roots in the XV-3.

That History started in 1950 with the first flight taking place in 1955.



http://history.nasa.gov/monograph17.pdf

CH-53K for Israel next
 

Israeli air force looks for lift from CH-53K - 8/10/2015 - Flight Global

Cheers

Tourist is right Bob; derivative is not the same as descended from.

But we can't, as it isn't. It is descended from the Bell 47, but not derived from it.

The Bell 47. Now there's an aircraft that changed the world!

Keep in mind that patents are good for 20 years (15 years for design patents). The BERP rotor was developed and patented in the 80s, way more than 20 years ago. So the patent will have expired by now.

CH-53K Still Rolling Out 7 Years Late
 

From Flightglobal:

Hope the government has this under a real fixed price contract, if not it will be $300M by the time it delivers in the mid-20's.

Lonewolf when I posted the 53K wouild still be on the ground through 2015 you wrote:

By by the way the 525 is flying, if you missed it.

The Sultan

Four years late per the 2006 schedule. Sold as a derivative in order to justify sole-source award to Sikorsky. And it is a derivative of the CH-53E, apart from entirely new engines, rotors, transmission, fuselage and avionics.

EMD was supposed to be $2.9 billion. What is it now, I wonder?

Marine procurement strikes again.

Low

They sold it as a minor upgrade to another gullible customer (like the Cyclone). It's first flight is 6-7 years late. IOC will probably be 10 years late. Poor L-M.

The Sultan

The customer was not in the least gullible. It was a tacit agreement to bypass competition and understate the costs. The Marines don't pay for this stuff anyway - it comes out of the Navy air budget.

No, I didn't miss it: I celebrated its first flight announcement by having a nice cup of coffee with a friend. Good news that it's gotten past that first milestone.

@Low Observable: given how the procurement world works on this side of the pond, and given how things like JSF (and for that matter, Osprey) eat APN-1 money like no tomorrow (with ripple effects on all other acquisition programs) it was a smarter strategy by the PMA to not go for a clean sheet of paper design. Had that been done, we'd not see it where it is now.

Your criticisms appear to hold a parochial interest. What's your skin in this game?

Finally made it's first flight...
 

Marine Corps CH-53K King Stallion Heavy-Lift Helicopter Finishes First Flight

-RP

Rotors look more like the Carson blades fitted to Sea Kings in Afghanistan than BERP (albeit much bigger!)

Not a direct derivative, but clearly common thought process: The LTV XC-142.

Checking back in history, the V in LTV was Vought, which was once allied with Sikorsky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C7sDjNtijc

Second CH-53K helicopter joins flight test program| Vertical Magazine

Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin Company, has announced the second CH-53K helicopter has joined the flight test program and achieved first flight. In addition, the first aircraft into the test program has achieved flight envelope expansion to 120 knots for the United States Marine Corps' (USMC) CH-53K King Stallion heavy lift helicopter program.

"Adding a second aircraft into flight status signifies another milestone for the CH-53K program," said Mike Torok, Sikorsky's vice president of CH-53K programs. "With both aircraft in flight test, our flight envelope expansion efforts will accelerate as we continue to make good progress toward our initial operational test assessment and full aircraft system qualification."


The first and second CH-53K heavy lift helicopter engineering development models (EDM) achieved their first flights on Oct. 27, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2016, respectively. To date, these helicopters have achieved over 35 flight hours combined including multiple flights with an active duty USMC pilot at the controls.


As the flight test program proceeds, these two flying CH-53K helicopters will be joined by two additional aircraft to complete flight qualification of the USMC's next generation heavy lift capability over an approximately three-year flight test program.


These first two aircraft are the most heavily instrumented of the EDM and will focus on structural flight loads and envelope expansion. When the other two EDM aircraft join the flight line in 2016 they will focus on performance, propulsion and avionics flight qualification.

From Flightglobal:

What happened to the cruise speed of 170 Knots? For $25 Billion+ the US should be getting something faster that an ASTAR or 407. So the V-22 is twice as fast.

The Sultan

Good question. Based on my few flights in an E, it handled 170 smoothly. (Granted, we were without cargo) I am not sure why you compare speed of Osprey to the 53, as Osprey isn't a heavy lift bird. The 53K's big selling point is payload, not speed. One of Ospreys great virtues is speed (and we pay a pretty penny for it, per the never ending harangues in the Osprey threads ...)

While I am not sure if 141 is a milestone or is that the final spec/requirement, at the Sikorsky site they list the cruise speed as 141 knots. One wonders: Is that a design trade off that pays the bills for the substantial payload increase over the E?


We'll see.