Sikorsky X2 coaxial heli developments.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is there left to discuss, if 'the goal' was 4 years of marketing by 'Sikorsky Innovation'?
If 'the goal' is technical improvements, which might lead to a marketable product, can anyone mention a single improvement on the X2-ABC that was not proposed 30 years ago at the conclusion of the XH-59-ABC. This, of course, excludes improvements over the past 30 years that are available to any new aircraft?
_______________________
If 'the goal' is technical improvements, which might lead to a marketable product, can anyone mention a single improvement on the X2-ABC that was not proposed 30 years ago at the conclusion of the XH-59-ABC. This, of course, excludes improvements over the past 30 years that are available to any new aircraft?
Enough of the 'sizzle'. Where's the 'steak'.
X2
Sultan, I can imagine that the " Spirit of Rett" racing team operates with the same enthusiasm and technical energy as the X2 team, and while I might not be able to agree that it is a more impressive achievement than the X2 due to my inescapable bias, it is a terrific feat. And all the more so when I read that their Chevy engine doesn't have a blower; it is naturally aspirated!
Dave Jackson, it appears that the X2 can do nothing to impress you, and that's too bad, because the only thing it shares with the XH-59 is that it has a contra-rotating main rotor. It couldn't have been built at the conclusion of the preceding ABC as "the stuff" that goes into it wasn't available.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Dave Jackson, it appears that the X2 can do nothing to impress you, and that's too bad, because the only thing it shares with the XH-59 is that it has a contra-rotating main rotor. It couldn't have been built at the conclusion of the preceding ABC as "the stuff" that goes into it wasn't available.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John, you are correct. The continuum of hyperbole from the marketing department and the frivolous patents from the legal department do not impress me. They appear to be little more than attempts to maintain image and stock value. Any serious buyer will want to 'look under the hood and kick the tires'.
What does impress me are those manufacturing companies that have innovative engineering departments, which are given the opportunity and the ability to provide new and improved products.
I asked for anyone to provide just one single improvement on the X2-ABC that the engineering personnel did not recommend at the conclusion of the XH-59-ABC. Unfortunately, your response was "the only thing it shares with the XH-59 is that it has a contra-rotating main rotor". Excuse me, but the essence of what the two craft share is the Advancing Blade Concept ~ both its strengths and its warts.
Sikorsky elected to not pursue the ABC concept after the XH-59 lost in competition. However it did acquire a considerable amount of data and the engineering department itemized many specific recommendations for improvement. Therefore I again ask, what is specific and unique to the Advancing Blade Concept, that makes the coaxial version of the ABC so viable today, when it wasn't 30 years ago?
Dave
What does impress me are those manufacturing companies that have innovative engineering departments, which are given the opportunity and the ability to provide new and improved products.
I asked for anyone to provide just one single improvement on the X2-ABC that the engineering personnel did not recommend at the conclusion of the XH-59-ABC. Unfortunately, your response was "the only thing it shares with the XH-59 is that it has a contra-rotating main rotor". Excuse me, but the essence of what the two craft share is the Advancing Blade Concept ~ both its strengths and its warts.
Sikorsky elected to not pursue the ABC concept after the XH-59 lost in competition. However it did acquire a considerable amount of data and the engineering department itemized many specific recommendations for improvement. Therefore I again ask, what is specific and unique to the Advancing Blade Concept, that makes the coaxial version of the ABC so viable today, when it wasn't 30 years ago?
Dave
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
Perhaps you can name some of "those manufacturing companies that have innovative engineering departments" and their latest innovations?
All that's been heard from abroad has been crickets.
Best.
Perhaps you can name some of "those manufacturing companies that have innovative engineering departments" and their latest innovations?
All that's been heard from abroad has been crickets.
Best.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan.
Internet related companies.
Dave
Perhaps you can name some of "those manufacturing companies that have innovative engineering departments" and their latest innovations?
Dave
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
I guess I'm just confused (nothing new). Sikorsky on their own dime developes over the years a fine machine that does what no one else in the helicopter business can do and we applauded that.
You weren't impressed so I'll ask again: What other helicopter company accross the pond has done ANYTHING comparable?
You say: "Internet related companies." What does that mean? That's why I'm confused. Perhaps you can unconfuse me please?
Thanks.
I guess I'm just confused (nothing new). Sikorsky on their own dime developes over the years a fine machine that does what no one else in the helicopter business can do and we applauded that.
You weren't impressed so I'll ask again: What other helicopter company accross the pond has done ANYTHING comparable?
You say: "Internet related companies." What does that mean? That's why I'm confused. Perhaps you can unconfuse me please?
Thanks.
Dave,
You talk about marketing hyperbole. Sikorsky claimed 5 years ago they would get the X2 to go 250 kts. Now they have gone 250 kts. Where is the hyperbole? On that article that riff_raff linked to, they talk about another 15 kts with some fairing. If they can actually squeak 265 kts out of the aircraft, then what you have is not hyperbole. Actually, it says they were holding back with what they thought it could really do.
-- IFMU
You talk about marketing hyperbole. Sikorsky claimed 5 years ago they would get the X2 to go 250 kts. Now they have gone 250 kts. Where is the hyperbole? On that article that riff_raff linked to, they talk about another 15 kts with some fairing. If they can actually squeak 265 kts out of the aircraft, then what you have is not hyperbole. Actually, it says they were holding back with what they thought it could really do.
-- IFMU
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan.
Sorry for my lack of clarity. The reference to "those manufacturing companies that have innovative engineering departments" was in reference to all manufacturing companies and not the rotorcraft industry specifically.
IFMU,
With their previous knowledge and 1500+ HP engine, who thought that the craft would not achieve 250 kts?
Who's to say that with a few modification they could not have achieved 250+ kts thirty years ago? And why didn't they????
Dave
Sorry for my lack of clarity. The reference to "those manufacturing companies that have innovative engineering departments" was in reference to all manufacturing companies and not the rotorcraft industry specifically.
IFMU,
With their previous knowledge and 1500+ HP engine, who thought that the craft would not achieve 250 kts?
Who's to say that with a few modification they could not have achieved 250+ kts thirty years ago? And why didn't they????
Dave
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 24th Sep 2010 at 01:44.
X2/XH-59
Dave, you posted:
"John, you are correct. The continuum of hyperbole from the marketing department and the frivolous patents from the legal department do not impress me. They appear to be little more than attempts to maintain image and stock value. Any serious buyer will want to 'look under the hood and kick the tires'."
Your construction implies that my assessment of the SA marketing and legal departments matches yours. I worked with both groups for 39 years and my opinion of both groups is 180 degrees from yours.
Secondly, although I have far from perfect recall, I think that we decided not to continue with the XH-59 after a decision by the supporting US Gov't agencies in 1980-81 not to continue with financial support of that program. A few years later the Army decided that the LHX was to be a conventional helicopter. That was around 84-85. Remember, at the time Sikorsky had a new production program with the UH-60, a new production program with the CH-53E, a new production program with the S-76A, (the 76B was on the boards) the development/qualification testing program on the SH-60B Seahawk, and I am certain we did not have enough people to try an ABC development toward a production model.
By the way all of those concurrent models were the product of that non-innovative engineering department to which you referred. Nowadays, they are working on some other "non-innovative" new models in addition to the X2, so as to be sure to keep the marketing guys and girls awash in hyperbole.
Thanks,
John Dixson
"John, you are correct. The continuum of hyperbole from the marketing department and the frivolous patents from the legal department do not impress me. They appear to be little more than attempts to maintain image and stock value. Any serious buyer will want to 'look under the hood and kick the tires'."
Your construction implies that my assessment of the SA marketing and legal departments matches yours. I worked with both groups for 39 years and my opinion of both groups is 180 degrees from yours.
Secondly, although I have far from perfect recall, I think that we decided not to continue with the XH-59 after a decision by the supporting US Gov't agencies in 1980-81 not to continue with financial support of that program. A few years later the Army decided that the LHX was to be a conventional helicopter. That was around 84-85. Remember, at the time Sikorsky had a new production program with the UH-60, a new production program with the CH-53E, a new production program with the S-76A, (the 76B was on the boards) the development/qualification testing program on the SH-60B Seahawk, and I am certain we did not have enough people to try an ABC development toward a production model.
By the way all of those concurrent models were the product of that non-innovative engineering department to which you referred. Nowadays, they are working on some other "non-innovative" new models in addition to the X2, so as to be sure to keep the marketing guys and girls awash in hyperbole.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo to the guys and gals wherever they are who actually design stuff, manage people, sell things, bend metal, and fly dangerous tests, versus those who sit in a chair, punching an archaic keyboard, and claiming superior knowledge over those actually doing something.
I believe that another element that stymied the X-59 in the 1980s was the lack of a Sugar Daddy. The X-59 was a DARPA sponsored program that had no home in DOD. By contrast the XV-15 had DOD support resulting in continued development, ultimately growing into the V-22. Examples of other programs that similarly went by the wayside are Northrop’s F-20, Sikorsky’s S-67 and until recently the Lockheed C-130J. Privately funded programs with little or no government backing have limited chance for success.
IEEE Spectrum article
A neat article. Sort of humanizes the people behind the effort, so content may not be suitable for all.
IEEE Spectrum: The Fastest Helicopter on Earth
Also they link to a "back story" article:
IEEE Spectrum: A Fast Helicopter's Slow Revival
-- IFMU
IEEE Spectrum: The Fastest Helicopter on Earth
Also they link to a "back story" article:
IEEE Spectrum: A Fast Helicopter's Slow Revival
-- IFMU
Last edited by IFMU; 26th Sep 2010 at 02:00. Reason: second link
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks IFMU,
The effort and the people behind the helicopter with extremely-rigid coaxial rotors is neat.
However, for a full appreciation of the effort one must include the earlier work, before Sikorsky called it the 'Advancing Blade Concept'.
"Stanley Hiller flew the first successful American co-axial helicopter, the XH-44, in July 1944, when he was only 19 years old. It also featured the world's first successful all-metal rigid-rotor blades." Hiller X-2-235
Dave
The effort and the people behind the helicopter with extremely-rigid coaxial rotors is neat.
However, for a full appreciation of the effort one must include the earlier work, before Sikorsky called it the 'Advancing Blade Concept'.
"Stanley Hiller flew the first successful American co-axial helicopter, the XH-44, in July 1944, when he was only 19 years old. It also featured the world's first successful all-metal rigid-rotor blades." Hiller X-2-235
Dave
I don't understand, Dave_Jackson, how you consider lacking in innovation the company who (in partnership with Boeing) put together Comanche -- a helicopter that did a number of new and innovative things in the helicopter biz. (Sadly, it was cancelled for what were IMO internal program reasons driven by the Army choice not to go single pilot ... risk averse strikes again ... but I digress, and I am sure others much closer to that program may not agree with my opinion on that).
Dave, what what floored me was your choosing to compare internet companies with helicopter companies in the realm of innovation. The orders of magnitude in complexity don't compare.
Sir, may I ask, please: huh?
Mister Jackson, do you actually take the MBA's approach to business, actual product being irrelevant to the bottom line's being red or black?
Given your enthusiasm for things rotary wing, I sincerely hope not.
Dave, what what floored me was your choosing to compare internet companies with helicopter companies in the realm of innovation. The orders of magnitude in complexity don't compare.
Sir, may I ask, please: huh?
Mister Jackson, do you actually take the MBA's approach to business, actual product being irrelevant to the bottom line's being red or black?
Given your enthusiasm for things rotary wing, I sincerely hope not.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow! 250kts - what an amazing machine: developed by a dedicated team and flown by a talented TP. I never had any doubt. 
Other priorities have kept me away from Rotorheads for a while, but i can assure you there is no loss of interest.
I can't wait to see how the high speed (compound) helicopter story unfolds. Sikorsky has opened another pioneering door.
Sikorsky’s X2 demonstrator sets unofficial world record speed of 250 knots
Other priorities have kept me away from Rotorheads for a while, but i can assure you there is no loss of interest.
I can't wait to see how the high speed (compound) helicopter story unfolds. Sikorsky has opened another pioneering door.
Sikorsky’s X2 demonstrator sets unofficial world record speed of 250 knots
Sikorsky Aircraft’s coaxial X2 Technology demonstrator has achieved the 250-knot (287.69 mph) milestone that was established as the goal of the craft from its inception. The speed, which was achieved in level flight during a 1.1-hour flight on Wednesday, September 15, is an unofficial speed record for a helicopter, easily beating the current official world record that stands at 216.46 knots (249.1 mph) set by the British built Westland Lynx ZB-500 in 1986.
Earlier this year, the X2 demonstrator achieved a speed of 181 knots in a test flight – faster than the 160-170 knot (184-195 mph) speeds generally possible with conventional helicopters – but achieving a speed of 250 knots was always the ultimate aim for the X2 Technology program since its beginnings in 2005. The 250-knot milestone was reached at the Sikorsky Development Flight Center where the demonstrator also reached 260 knots (299.2 mph) in a very shallow dive during the flight.
“The aerospace industry today has a new horizon,” said Sikorsky President Jeffrey P. Pino. “The X2 Technology demonstrator continues to prove its potential as a game-changer, and Sikorsky Aircraft is proud to be advancing this innovative technology and to continue our company’s pioneering legacy.”
The X2 Technology demonstrator combines an integrated suite of technologies intended to advance the state-of-the-art, counter-rotating coaxial rotor helicopter. It is designed to demonstrate that a helicopter can cruise comfortably at 250 knots while retaining such desirable attributes as excellent low-speed handling, efficient hovering, and a seamless and simple transition to high speed.
Kevin Bredenbeck, Sikorsky’s Director of Flight Operations and Chief Pilot for the company and for its X2 Technology program, manned the milestone flight. Bredenbeck said the demonstrator has been performing well, meeting expectations of performance predictions and progressing with every test flight.
“Our primary key performance parameter has been met,” said Jim Kagdis, Program Manager for Sikorsky Advanced Programs. “The 250-knot milestone was established as the goal of the demonstrator from its inception. It’s exciting to imagine how our customers will use this capability.”
Earlier this year, the X2 demonstrator achieved a speed of 181 knots in a test flight – faster than the 160-170 knot (184-195 mph) speeds generally possible with conventional helicopters – but achieving a speed of 250 knots was always the ultimate aim for the X2 Technology program since its beginnings in 2005. The 250-knot milestone was reached at the Sikorsky Development Flight Center where the demonstrator also reached 260 knots (299.2 mph) in a very shallow dive during the flight.
“The aerospace industry today has a new horizon,” said Sikorsky President Jeffrey P. Pino. “The X2 Technology demonstrator continues to prove its potential as a game-changer, and Sikorsky Aircraft is proud to be advancing this innovative technology and to continue our company’s pioneering legacy.”
The X2 Technology demonstrator combines an integrated suite of technologies intended to advance the state-of-the-art, counter-rotating coaxial rotor helicopter. It is designed to demonstrate that a helicopter can cruise comfortably at 250 knots while retaining such desirable attributes as excellent low-speed handling, efficient hovering, and a seamless and simple transition to high speed.
Kevin Bredenbeck, Sikorsky’s Director of Flight Operations and Chief Pilot for the company and for its X2 Technology program, manned the milestone flight. Bredenbeck said the demonstrator has been performing well, meeting expectations of performance predictions and progressing with every test flight.
“Our primary key performance parameter has been met,” said Jim Kagdis, Program Manager for Sikorsky Advanced Programs. “The 250-knot milestone was established as the goal of the demonstrator from its inception. It’s exciting to imagine how our customers will use this capability.”
Mulling over a few thoughts:
From XV-15 to V-22 took about 15 years, then another seven or eight for IOC.
How long from X2 to a cargo, pax, or "mission" sized aircraft that people/companies/nations can use to fulfill various needs that helicopters fill now?
That fixed wing aircraft fill now, but without the need for as much runway?
From XV-15 to V-22 took about 15 years, then another seven or eight for IOC.
How long from X2 to a cargo, pax, or "mission" sized aircraft that people/companies/nations can use to fulfill various needs that helicopters fill now?
That fixed wing aircraft fill now, but without the need for as much runway?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf 50
Nope. I do not support today's capitalism that serves the short term 'need for greed'. Its flaws are becoming very obvious.
Time will tell whether the X2 becomes a viable product or another Comanche.
Dave
Nope. I do not support today's capitalism that serves the short term 'need for greed'. Its flaws are becoming very obvious.
Time will tell whether the X2 becomes a viable product or another Comanche.
Dave
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 28th Sep 2010 at 22:47. Reason: Shortened - considerably
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
The other way to see this is that despite the disappointment in not being able to develop XH-59 further a new generation of engineers picked up the concept, dusted it off, realised the potential, then had the gumption to take that potential to full realisation. All we have to do is give them a pat on the back for being so bold.
Will X2 spawn a new generation of high speed helicopters? That depends on us.
We could nit pick and criticise those dedicated engineers or we could congratulate them. The purse holders will be looking to us "experts" to see whether this idea is worth further investment - i for one whole heartedly support the X2.
Mart
The other way to see this is that despite the disappointment in not being able to develop XH-59 further a new generation of engineers picked up the concept, dusted it off, realised the potential, then had the gumption to take that potential to full realisation. All we have to do is give them a pat on the back for being so bold.
Will X2 spawn a new generation of high speed helicopters? That depends on us.
We could nit pick and criticise those dedicated engineers or we could congratulate them. The purse holders will be looking to us "experts" to see whether this idea is worth further investment - i for one whole heartedly support the X2.
Mart