Sikorsky X2 coaxial heli developments.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Lonewolf:
The X-2 derivative will have options for two, one or no pilots.
One of my FW colleagues many years ago suggested that if you wanted to automate a complex task (such as the scout helicopter mission) to the point where one pilot could do it, why not go all the way and take the pilot out?
In many cases, the second set of eyes makes a huge difference.
The X-2 derivative will have options for two, one or no pilots.
One of my FW colleagues many years ago suggested that if you wanted to automate a complex task (such as the scout helicopter mission) to the point where one pilot could do it, why not go all the way and take the pilot out?
In many cases, the second set of eyes makes a huge difference.
Shawn: yes, two sets of eyes never hurt, but if you are making an attack helo, like Cobra or Apache, which has tandem seating (as they did with Comanche) there is enough electronic stuff now to make the single pilot paradigm fit quite nicely, and the side by side field of view problem isn't an obstacle to see and avoid.
The problem is in trusting the pilot work load reducing mission gadgets to actually reduce pilot workload, rather than adding to it ...
The problem is in trusting the pilot work load reducing mission gadgets to actually reduce pilot workload, rather than adding to it ...
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 22nd Oct 2010 at 18:03.
Some cool video on flightglobal. Looks like bootleg video, like a zippercam or something. It's long, 25 mins or so.
Flightglobal Videos
-- IFMU
Flightglobal Videos
-- IFMU
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the same weight as a UH-60; actually just under half the max gross weight (S-97 ~ 10,500 lbs vs. UH-60 22,000 lbs). This aircraft is meant as a replacement for the OH-58D with a secondary mission to carry a small number of troops. A comparison with the Black Hawk is really apples to oranges.
This is my first post here, although I've been lurking for awhile. I'm a UH-60 pilot in the U.S. Army and am excited about the prospects of X2-type aircraft. Whether you want to call it a compound helicopter or whatever doesn't reallly matter. What matters is good hover performance combined with 200+ knot cruise speed.
This is my first post here, although I've been lurking for awhile. I'm a UH-60 pilot in the U.S. Army and am excited about the prospects of X2-type aircraft. Whether you want to call it a compound helicopter or whatever doesn't reallly matter. What matters is good hover performance combined with 200+ knot cruise speed.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: California
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just imagine this thing fitted out with an M230, FLIR/TV optics, and a nicely contoured radar on the mast, and maybe some fold-out weapon pylons that can carry either a full load of Hellfires, FFARs, and anything in between. Make it a side by side cockpit, surrounded with a titanium bathtub of armor, and you basically have a gunship that can lob Hellfires from a distance, or go in fast with guns and rockets, and also be quick on it's feet.
Would really bring on the hurt.
The AH-6/MH-6 and Kiowa replacement configuration would be very nice to see though, both are aging airframes.
Would really bring on the hurt.
The AH-6/MH-6 and Kiowa replacement configuration would be very nice to see though, both are aging airframes.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Hunt3R:
You've got a remarkably similar view of things to Sikorsky... That's exactly what they're thinking. You'll note the prototype S-97 has a streamlined fin between the two rotors - ideal place for a radar...
You've got a remarkably similar view of things to Sikorsky... That's exactly what they're thinking. You'll note the prototype S-97 has a streamlined fin between the two rotors - ideal place for a radar...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Good stuff, the way forward.
Interesting that the tailwheel sits lower than the mainwheels to protect the prop tips. Settling the aircraft onto all three results in a nose-down pitch. Can the pusher prop go into reverse pitch?; I'm thinking about the implications on running landings and ground taxying speeds.
P.S. They say there is nothing new in engineering. Anyone else see a certain external likeness to the Cierva Rotorcraft CR-LTH-1, first flown in 1969? Mind you, that was only half as fast but who else would have tried twin piston engines?
And obviously, it also looks a bit like the Lockheed Cheyenne.
Interesting that the tailwheel sits lower than the mainwheels to protect the prop tips. Settling the aircraft onto all three results in a nose-down pitch. Can the pusher prop go into reverse pitch?; I'm thinking about the implications on running landings and ground taxying speeds.
P.S. They say there is nothing new in engineering. Anyone else see a certain external likeness to the Cierva Rotorcraft CR-LTH-1, first flown in 1969? Mind you, that was only half as fast but who else would have tried twin piston engines?
And obviously, it also looks a bit like the Lockheed Cheyenne.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cjb60,
If you're an Army H-60 pilot and are anxious for something like the X2, then you should follow the JMR program. The JMR concept is intended to eventually replace most or all of the existing Army rotorcraft with either an X2-type compound or a tilt-rotor configuration. Either way, you'll get higher speeds, greater payload/range, and better hot/high performance.
If you believe the AATD press releases, two JMR prototypes are supposed to be flying by FY'17.
riff_raff
If you're an Army H-60 pilot and are anxious for something like the X2, then you should follow the JMR program. The JMR concept is intended to eventually replace most or all of the existing Army rotorcraft with either an X2-type compound or a tilt-rotor configuration. Either way, you'll get higher speeds, greater payload/range, and better hot/high performance.
If you believe the AATD press releases, two JMR prototypes are supposed to be flying by FY'17.
riff_raff
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
riff raff,
I am familiar with the JMR program. The concept sounds good (but vague at this point), I just have a hard time picturing any program with the word "joint" as part of the program name surviving. Of course, whenever the JSF goes operational it'll blow that theory, but trying to get two or more of the services to agree on specs is difficult to say the least. JMR sounds a lot like the original LHX program; not a good thing seeing how that program turned out.
It's cool to see companies like Sikorsky and Eurocopter investing their own resources to advance the state of the art. Hopefully it will pay off both for the companies and customers.
U.S. Army Rotorcraft Initiative Draws Praise | AVIATION WEEK
I am familiar with the JMR program. The concept sounds good (but vague at this point), I just have a hard time picturing any program with the word "joint" as part of the program name surviving. Of course, whenever the JSF goes operational it'll blow that theory, but trying to get two or more of the services to agree on specs is difficult to say the least. JMR sounds a lot like the original LHX program; not a good thing seeing how that program turned out.
It's cool to see companies like Sikorsky and Eurocopter investing their own resources to advance the state of the art. Hopefully it will pay off both for the companies and customers.
U.S. Army Rotorcraft Initiative Draws Praise | AVIATION WEEK
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following table is from an article in the the American Helicopter Society's publication Vertiflite - Fall 2010 issue.
The speed records are as at August 17, 2010.
__________________________
And more.
A third Patent Application # 20100264258 ~ MAGNETIC DE-ROTATION SYSTEM FOR A SHAFT FAIRING SYSTEM was issued on Oct. 21 2010 covering an another proposal for controlling the rotation of the rotor mast fairing.
Dave
The speed records are as at August 17, 2010.
__________________________
And more.
A third Patent Application # 20100264258 ~ MAGNETIC DE-ROTATION SYSTEM FOR A SHAFT FAIRING SYSTEM was issued on Oct. 21 2010 covering an another proposal for controlling the rotation of the rotor mast fairing.
Dave
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 28th Oct 2010 at 02:56. Reason: And more ...... Added
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
Regarding that Sikorsky X2 "unofficial" speed record entry in the Fall 2010 Vertiflite issue, take a look at who bought the glossy full page ad space on the inside back cover. I imagine it's kind of like winning Car and Driver magazine's "Car of the Year" award.
riff_raff
Regarding that Sikorsky X2 "unofficial" speed record entry in the Fall 2010 Vertiflite issue, take a look at who bought the glossy full page ad space on the inside back cover. I imagine it's kind of like winning Car and Driver magazine's "Car of the Year" award.
riff_raff
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
riff_raff,
Perhaps if advertising expenses were not 100% tax deductible there would be a greater incentive for companies to shift more of their promotional resources over to improving products and services.
Dave
Perhaps if advertising expenses were not 100% tax deductible there would be a greater incentive for companies to shift more of their promotional resources over to improving products and services.
Dave
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
records
actually the 1986 Lynx record is the absolute speed record for all classes of helicopter, not just the 15-25km one.
BTW I know I am being picky but in the table if the XH59A has flown at 240kts why is the X2 speed (235kts) a record?
Both are classed as rigid coax, aux propulsion platforms
DM
BTW I know I am being picky but in the table if the XH59A has flown at 240kts why is the X2 speed (235kts) a record?
Both are classed as rigid coax, aux propulsion platforms
DM
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When is anyone going to start shedding light on the fact that Sikorsky didn't really break any record? If you want absolute with a plane jane fling wing, the Lynx got it... Absolute with any assistance, the 533. Otherwise I am going to start setting records for absolute groundspeed with a tailwind, fastest speed over a 20cm course, hell the world record speed with autopilot on... and feel legit because the claim the X2 is now the fastest thing with a rotor system has not been called out. Nothing against the program; Sikorsky is very smart perusing the whole ABC/Aux Propulsion thing as it is one of the futures of rotorcraft and it is very admirable that they are doing it all on their own initiative (and dime)... but the fanfare is going a bit too far and they are greedily overshadowing a lot of the other notable advancements in helicopter history for the sake of publicity.
Mike
Mike
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the point has been raised on several occasions on this thread
the point of contention is generally what is a 'helicopter' as much as anything. Actually the X2 isnt even the fastest rotorcraft in the world, that will be the V22 wont it?
In any case unless the FAI ratify it, it isn't a record anyway
SAC are very good with the PR and there is no denying the X2 is a valuable experiment that may well lead to significant changes to rotorcraft technology, but until the FAI say otherwise the record still stays in Yeovil
DM
In any case unless the FAI ratify it, it isn't a record anyway
SAC are very good with the PR and there is no denying the X2 is a valuable experiment that may well lead to significant changes to rotorcraft technology, but until the FAI say otherwise the record still stays in Yeovil
DM
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mare Nostrum
Age: 41
Posts: 1,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CV-22 is a tilt-rotor, obviously, and the FAA puts it into itīs own category along with the Harrier, being the Powered Lift Category, I think the X-2 would go into rotorcraft.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aw, come on guys. 
If the mission is just vertcal take-off to maximum cruise speed then to a vertical landing then any of the Saturn V / Lunar module Apollo missions have got everything beat...
The issue here is which technology is going to have the most influence on the market place. The point about X2 ABC is that it is a logical next step in helicopter development. Neither disk loading or machine congiguration has been compromised to push up the cruise speed. There is a slight weight penalty, which is true of all of the high speed VTOL contenders.
If the mission is just vertcal take-off to maximum cruise speed then to a vertical landing then any of the Saturn V / Lunar module Apollo missions have got everything beat...
The issue here is which technology is going to have the most influence on the market place. The point about X2 ABC is that it is a logical next step in helicopter development. Neither disk loading or machine congiguration has been compromised to push up the cruise speed. There is a slight weight penalty, which is true of all of the high speed VTOL contenders.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graviman,
Leave it to a bunch of engineers to beat a technical point to death! Regardless, it's lots of fun to discuss.
If the issue is rotorcraft or helicopter, I'd argue that a rotorcraft is any aircraft that can take-off and land with lift provided solely by a rotor system. A helicopter is an aircraft that operates at all times with lift provided solely by the rotor system.
Having said that, the "rotorcraft" with the highest forward speed is the F-35B. It can take-off vertically, hover, and land vertically on lift provided primarily by an engine-driven "rotor" fan. In forward flight it can exceed the speed of sound.
Regards,
riff_raff
Leave it to a bunch of engineers to beat a technical point to death! Regardless, it's lots of fun to discuss.
If the issue is rotorcraft or helicopter, I'd argue that a rotorcraft is any aircraft that can take-off and land with lift provided solely by a rotor system. A helicopter is an aircraft that operates at all times with lift provided solely by the rotor system.
Having said that, the "rotorcraft" with the highest forward speed is the F-35B. It can take-off vertically, hover, and land vertically on lift provided primarily by an engine-driven "rotor" fan. In forward flight it can exceed the speed of sound.
Regards,
riff_raff