Sikorsky X2 coaxial heli developments.
Youtube video of last flight
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFMU.
Would that wood be knotty pine or was your comment a naughty pine?
Seriously;
At 7 hp / knot / occupant it's going to take a hell of a lot of wood to keep the X2's fire burning.
At the projected 220 knot operating speed there may be one hell of a contest between the X2 and the X3.
Dave
Would that wood be knotty pine or was your comment a naughty pine?
Seriously;
At 7 hp / knot / occupant it's going to take a hell of a lot of wood to keep the X2's fire burning.
At the projected 220 knot operating speed there may be one hell of a contest between the X2 and the X3.
Dave
@henra
Depends on time, schedule, and budget. Also depends on the minimum criterion established to make a "go/no go" decision on the program. No idea, and I am not sure Sikorsky will be telling. 
I agree.
That's my guess.
Agree yet again. Time and resources are finite, could be they ran out of one of them.
@Dave J:
Yes, looks like an interesting competition is shaping up.
Consider the following:
On the X3, where would the weapons stations be located?
Those props look to be an obstruction to conventional weapons mounting points, and weapons release. Can probably be worked out, but it will take some thinking.
Although I generally don't disagree I'm still wondering if the effort for testing it on the prototype would have been really that high ?
If everything else is in place I would have thought this effort shouldn't have been too high and you could learn potentially important things early giving you time to work on it systematically without the ususal rush/stress/time limitations in the 'real' project.
Maybe the budget was simply consumed by then and it was not considered worthwhile...
Coming from an engineering background myself I feel with the engineers/designers who would have surely loved to test it.
@Dave J:
Yes, looks like an interesting competition is shaping up.
Consider the following:
On the X3, where would the weapons stations be located?
Those props look to be an obstruction to conventional weapons mounting points, and weapons release. Can probably be worked out, but it will take some thinking.
Those props look to be an obstruction to conventional weapons mounting points, and weapons release. Can probably be worked out, but it will take some thinking.
With regards to the flight video, looks like a pretty boring demonstration. A bunch of twitchy (still...didnt they dial down the FBW gains?) high speed flyovers (negative ghostrider, the pattern is full), but no display of the much-vaunted pusher-prop-enabled attitude control
SAC bragged how X2 tech could allow the craft to "hang" nose-down on the pusher and maintain a bead on a target without forward flight....a demo which would have been quite appropriate given the audience.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Age: 13
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually on the last flight the X2 did some hovering maneuvers. At one time it stood on it's tail in a stable hover with the nose 20 degrees high and turned. And on another to about 15 degrees and then it hung on the tail in a hover with the nose about 10 degrees nose down. The prop on the X2 Demonstrator has only -6 degrees negative prop pitch available where on the S97 Raider it will have about -20 degrees negative prop pitch available for getting the nose down in a hover even further. Pretty cool final approach was made from about 200 kts over the fence using a very agressive level deceleration from 150 kts to hover. Shame this final flight posted video didn't show all it did. Once all the video gets processed i hope Sikorsky will release more from that last flight. Truly amazing and impressive demonstration! Let's hope Sikorsky can capaitalize on what this X2 program accomplished and keep moving rotor wing aviation even further forward into the future!
Sans, is that the same X3 as was discussed in this thread? 
Thanks for the sketch, neat evolution of the idea.
Thanks for the sketch, neat evolution of the idea.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Jackson
At 7 hp / knot / occupant it's going to take a hell of a lot of wood to keep the X2's fire burning.
Originally Posted by UberFliegeJunge
Let's hope Sikorsky can capaitalize on what this X2 program accomplished and keep moving rotor wing aviation even further forward into the future!
Mart
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Sikorsky Puts Money Where Mouth Is."
Jul 29, 2011
Comment of the Week: A Defense Contractor Willing to Put Its Money Where Its Mouth Is?
By NICK SCHWELLENBACH
Frequent POGO blog commenter Dfens, citing a recent article in Defense Tech, writes:
We agree with "Dfens"—it's encouraging to see traditional defense contractors taking risks to develop new technology with their own money. That's how the commercial marketplace, which generally delivers new technologies faster for less money, works.
Contrast what Sikorsky is doing with how Bell Helicopter charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars for a helicopter that the military will not even buy. Bob Cox at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram highlights this difference of approach:
The contractors, however, still get paid. (This Star-Telegram article looks at a special kind of government-funded research and development program, called Independent Research and Development, or IR&D, which is somewhat different from what I am talking about.)
One way the Defense Department has been tackling this problem is by trying to rely more on mature technologies and less on immature technology. That way there's less risk in the development phase of programs (it's "risky" to taxpayers because, with immature technology, you don't know how long it will take to bring technology to maturity, or how much money it will cost or if it's entirely doable).
It's better to actually have something for troops who need it now that might be less advanced than a highly advanced weapon that is never delivered or is decades away. But the Pentagon still craves advanced technology to gain an advantage on the battlefield, be it on land, sea, sky, space, or cyberspace. Dfens' approach is part of the solution.
Nick Schwellenbach is POGO's Director of Investigations.
Posted at 12:14 PM in Contract Oversight, Defense | Permalink
Trackback URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trac...4e8a36ebee970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Comment of the Week: A Defense Contractor Willing to Put Its Money Where Its Mouth Is?:
Comment of the Week: A Defense Contractor Willing to Put Its Money Where Its Mouth Is?
By NICK SCHWELLENBACH
Frequent POGO blog commenter Dfens, citing a recent article in Defense Tech, writes:
Check out this interesting video Steve Trimble of The DEW Line shot of Sikorsky's presentation at the Oskhosh AirVenture on the future of it's high-speed coaxial rotor helos. Pay particular attention to the part about construction on the prototype S-97 high-speed military bird being set to begin in a "month or so." The first flight of the bird is tentatively scheduled for late 2013 or early 2014. -- Defense Tech
Ok, POGO, here's your chance to get behind something that would really save the US taxpayer some money. Here is a defense contractor that's willing to put their own money where their mouth is and develop a game changing new technology helicopter for the US Army. It took 3 decades to get the V-22 flying, and that crappy thing is still having major issues, not the least of them being a unique ring vortex state that has killed several crews. When the DoD needs real game changing technology it gets it from companies willing to spend their own money to develop it like General Atomics or Sikorsky or Barrett. Here's your chance to take a stand for the US taxpayer, POGO. Are you going to take it?Contrast what Sikorsky is doing with how Bell Helicopter charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars for a helicopter that the military will not even buy. Bob Cox at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram highlights this difference of approach:
Sikorsky Aircraft Co., one of Bell's major competitors, has said publicly that it is not charging the government for any expenses incurred on development of its new X2 high-speed helicopter. Sikorsky has also said it will build two prototype military aircraft entirely with its own funds.
The way the military-industrial complex tends to work now is taxpayers pay billions for the development of new weapon systems—and the technology upon which they are predicated—but after billions have already been spent, taxpayers then discover it will take far longer and cost far more money to develop the weapon than expected. Often the weapon system gets canceled after billions have been spent on development, leaving our troops with little to nothing.The contractors, however, still get paid. (This Star-Telegram article looks at a special kind of government-funded research and development program, called Independent Research and Development, or IR&D, which is somewhat different from what I am talking about.)
One way the Defense Department has been tackling this problem is by trying to rely more on mature technologies and less on immature technology. That way there's less risk in the development phase of programs (it's "risky" to taxpayers because, with immature technology, you don't know how long it will take to bring technology to maturity, or how much money it will cost or if it's entirely doable).
It's better to actually have something for troops who need it now that might be less advanced than a highly advanced weapon that is never delivered or is decades away. But the Pentagon still craves advanced technology to gain an advantage on the battlefield, be it on land, sea, sky, space, or cyberspace. Dfens' approach is part of the solution.
Nick Schwellenbach is POGO's Director of Investigations.
Posted at 12:14 PM in Contract Oversight, Defense | Permalink
Trackback URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trac...4e8a36ebee970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Comment of the Week: A Defense Contractor Willing to Put Its Money Where Its Mouth Is?:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Somewhat hard on Bell. Just because Sikorsky has decided - for PR reasons - not to apply any Govt [re]funded IRAD to Raider does not necessarily mean that it is less exploitative of the IRAD process than Bell. You can be assured that the smart folk at Sikorsky will make full use of any funding source available.
The Defense Tech piece also fails to recognize that Kevin misspoke when he gave the S-97's first flight as being "two and a half years" away at OSH. The stated FF goal is actually late 2014, i.e. 3½ years hence.
I/C
The Defense Tech piece also fails to recognize that Kevin misspoke when he gave the S-97's first flight as being "two and a half years" away at OSH. The stated FF goal is actually late 2014, i.e. 3½ years hence.
I/C
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because Sikorsky has decided - for PR reasons - not to apply any Govt [re]funded IRAD to Raider.....
It's probably not just for PR reasons. The minute you spend DOD money on something, the technology can get ITAR restrictions and the gov't gets certain rights to it. Thus Sikorsky could be limited in what applications it may pursue with the X2 concept.
riff_raff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget, Riff, the Sikorsky philosophy of designing the product to suit civilian market requirements while meeting DOD specifications. The ability to hop point-to-point at reasonable cruise speed opens up all sorts of new markets. This is definately the case with advancing blade technology since the machine does not compromise at all on the ability to hover. There is a weight penalty, but with so many innovative new hingeless rotor designs out there I would challenge whether this is really an issue. Once the market realises it does not need expensive runway land to meet medium range transport requirements it will demand a cost effective machine to fill the gap...
Last edited by Graviman; 8th Aug 2011 at 18:08.
AOPA X2 article - Swamp Pirates
AOPA Online: Swamp Pirates
Also, the X2 is to be displayed at the New England Air Museum 10/1 and 10/2.
New England Air Museum Home Page
-- IFMU
Also, the X2 is to be displayed at the New England Air Museum 10/1 and 10/2.
New England Air Museum Home Page
-- IFMU
Last edited by IFMU; 25th Sep 2011 at 01:42. Reason: Added NEAM bit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but with so many innovative new hingeless rotor designs out there I would challenge whether this is really an issue.
Those "innovative new hingeless rotor designs" present a whole new set of potential issues. One has to wonder why the X2 spent relatively little time flying (around 22 hours total?) before it was consigned to the museum. One possible reason may have been the "innovative new hingeless" coaxial rotor design. In some of the videos of the X2's high speed runs, I can recall seeing the downward deflecting retreating side blade tip of the upper rotor passing very close to the upward deflecting advancing side blade tip of the lower rotor. While the X2 blades are fairly short, this problem will get more difficult as the blades get longer.
riff_raff
I can recall seeing the downward deflecting retreating side blade tip of the upper rotor passing very close to the upward deflecting advancing side blade tip of the lower rotor. While the X2 blades are fairly short, this problem will get more difficult as the blades get longer.
There is always talk from them about the X2's "scalability". Thats true...aerodynamically speaking the coaxial rigid rotor system is quite scalable. Building an ultra-stiff blade set that maintains the efficient spacing and doesnt not incur tip-path-divergence issues? Thats an entirely seperate can 'o worms.
IMO the 11-12000 GW range is probably the upper end of the envelope without some radical blade material innovation. And I do mean radical.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The removal of the airfoil at the root 'reverse velocity region' results in the location of the lift on the advancing blade being further out on the span. This makes for a greater moment, which wants to bend the blade upward.
A story of coincidence?
Many years ago, while evaluating potentially rotorcraft concepts, it began to appear that the Advancing Blade Concept, which Sikorsky pursued 27 years earlier, had potential merit. After a few years of research and development I offered to present a paper at an America Helicopter Society conference on an Intermeshing craft that utilized the ABC. This offer was, in turn, forwarded to the heads of two seminars.
The eventual responses were that they both had received a large selection of submissions and for that reason mine could not be incorporated in either seminar. Subsequently, a general e-mail was received that was soliciting papers for one, or perhaps it was both, of those seminars.
I was disappointed that the presentation was declined, and, that later a request had gone out for additional papers. However, this was mitigated by a continuation of the R & D on the ABC that started showing some insurmountable limitations in the concept. The most serious was my inability to develop a satisfying means of converting the reverse velocity region from a downward thrust into a lift. Another was the inability to discover a reliable way of providing a Variable Speed Transmission between the rotors and the propeller.
Approximately, a year later Sikorsky announced its intention to remake a Coaxial-ABC under the name X2. Unfortunately, they elected to build a craft which does not overcome these vary same problems. IMO, the X2 may have been a marketing program to keep the stock up, plus a legal program to inhibit others from working on the ABC's limitations. The X2 certainly was not a quiet undercover program to develop a future rotorcraft.
Was the X2 promoted because Sikorsky has nothing else to offer toward the Next Generation Rotorcraft? Should I apologies to Sikorsky on the possibility that I may have unintentionally enticed them into taking a
Dave
A story of coincidence?
Many years ago, while evaluating potentially rotorcraft concepts, it began to appear that the Advancing Blade Concept, which Sikorsky pursued 27 years earlier, had potential merit. After a few years of research and development I offered to present a paper at an America Helicopter Society conference on an Intermeshing craft that utilized the ABC. This offer was, in turn, forwarded to the heads of two seminars.
The eventual responses were that they both had received a large selection of submissions and for that reason mine could not be incorporated in either seminar. Subsequently, a general e-mail was received that was soliciting papers for one, or perhaps it was both, of those seminars.
I was disappointed that the presentation was declined, and, that later a request had gone out for additional papers. However, this was mitigated by a continuation of the R & D on the ABC that started showing some insurmountable limitations in the concept. The most serious was my inability to develop a satisfying means of converting the reverse velocity region from a downward thrust into a lift. Another was the inability to discover a reliable way of providing a Variable Speed Transmission between the rotors and the propeller.
Approximately, a year later Sikorsky announced its intention to remake a Coaxial-ABC under the name X2. Unfortunately, they elected to build a craft which does not overcome these vary same problems. IMO, the X2 may have been a marketing program to keep the stock up, plus a legal program to inhibit others from working on the ABC's limitations. The X2 certainly was not a quiet undercover program to develop a future rotorcraft.
Was the X2 promoted because Sikorsky has nothing else to offer toward the Next Generation Rotorcraft? Should I apologies to Sikorsky on the possibility that I may have unintentionally enticed them into taking a
Dave
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 30th Oct 2011 at 22:53.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military Pusher Prop
As I recall, launching a missile or rocket currently results in everything downwind being damaged by blast, hot exhaust and often chunks of burning propellant. On both X2 and X3 there are propellors "downwind" of potential weapons ... and I remember well what an out of balance prop feels like.
Road to Nowhere?
Dave, Rev 1 to "Road to Nowhere":
Sikorsky Chief Test Pilot Awarded SETP Honor for Achievement with X2 Technology™ Demonstrator
October 03, 2011
STRATFORD, Connecticut - Kevin Bredenbeck, the pilot who flew the revolutionary X2 Technology™ demonstrator last year to an unofficial speed record for conventional helicopters, has been recognized by the Society of Experimental Test Pilots (SETP) with the Iven C. Kincheloe Award for the year’s outstanding professional accomplishment in the conduct of flight testing, Sikorsky Aircraft announced today. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX).
Bredenbeck, who also is Sikorsky’s Director of Flight Operations, accepted the award at a ceremony in California on Sept. 24.
“It’s hard to believe what has transpired over the last few years, focusing on the task at hand, holding a team together and pushing the envelope of an ‘X’ plane,” Bredenbeck said in collecting the award. “I got to lead a great team and would never have been able to demonstrate the capabilities of this X2 technology without them. I’m even prouder that this team delivered to the doorstep of the future the next generation potential for rotor winged flight.”
The Iven C. Kincheloe Award was established in 1958 in memory of Air Force Test Pilot and SETP member Iven C.Kincheloe to honor exceptional contributions to an aerospace program as a test pilot. The award is sponsored by the Lockheed Martin Corp. The history of previous award winners includes some of the aerospace and aviation industry’s most accomplished and recognized figures in experimental and exploration flight including NASA astronauts from the Space Shuttle and Apollo space program.
The X2 Technology demonstrator has been recognized with a number of aviation, innovation and technology accolades over the past two years including winning the Robert J. Collier Trophy for greatest achievement in aerospace in 2010. In addition, it was chosen by the American Helicopter Society as the winner of the 2011 Hughes Award, given in recognition of an outstanding improvement in fundamental helicopter technology brought to fruition during the preceding calendar year. In April 2011, Professional Pilot magazine named X2 as the “Innovation of the Year.”
The X2 also was previously named one of the Top 10 Technologies to Watch by Aviation Week (January 2010), was awarded a 2009 Breakthrough Award in Innovation from Popular Mechanics magazine, was named One of 2009’s Best Inventions by Time magazine, was identified among the “Best of What’s New” by Popular Science in 2009, and was a finalist for Aviation Week’s Laureate Award in Aerospace and Propulsion.
Mark Miller, Sikorsky Vice President of Research & Engineering, said: “The SETP award is appreciated by the entire Sikorsky workforce as recognition of the great things that can be accomplished with innovative thinking, dedication to the task at hand, and a vision that believes the tough challenges of vertical flight are attainable.”
The X2 Technology program began in 2005 when Sikorsky first committed resources and full funding for the program’s development. 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 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.
Among the innovative technologies the X2 Technology demonstrator employs are:
· Fly-by-wire flight controls
· Counter-rotating rigid rotor blades
· Hub drag reduction
· Active vibration control
· Integrated auxiliary propulsion system
As a “follow-on” to the successful X2 program, Sikorsky Aircraft is continuing development of the next-generation rotary wing technology by launching the S-97™ RAIDER™ program. Sikorsky and select suppliers will design, build, and fly two prototype light tactical helicopters. These prototype vehicles will enable the U.S. armed forces to experience, first hand, the advanced performance capabilities X2 Technology can provide.
Like the X2 Technology demonstrator, the S-97 RAIDER helicopter will feature twin coaxial counter-rotating main rotors and a pusher propeller. In addition to flying at nearly twice the speed of a conventional helicopter, the S-97 RAIDER prototype aircraft will incorporate other key performance parameters critical to combat operations — increased maneuverability, greater endurance, and the ability to operate at high altitudes.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacture, and service. United Technologies Corp., based in Hartford, Conn., provides a broad range of high technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.
View related photo: Kevin Bredenbeck
Thanks,
John Dixson
Sikorsky Chief Test Pilot Awarded SETP Honor for Achievement with X2 Technology™ Demonstrator
October 03, 2011
STRATFORD, Connecticut - Kevin Bredenbeck, the pilot who flew the revolutionary X2 Technology™ demonstrator last year to an unofficial speed record for conventional helicopters, has been recognized by the Society of Experimental Test Pilots (SETP) with the Iven C. Kincheloe Award for the year’s outstanding professional accomplishment in the conduct of flight testing, Sikorsky Aircraft announced today. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX). Bredenbeck, who also is Sikorsky’s Director of Flight Operations, accepted the award at a ceremony in California on Sept. 24.
“It’s hard to believe what has transpired over the last few years, focusing on the task at hand, holding a team together and pushing the envelope of an ‘X’ plane,” Bredenbeck said in collecting the award. “I got to lead a great team and would never have been able to demonstrate the capabilities of this X2 technology without them. I’m even prouder that this team delivered to the doorstep of the future the next generation potential for rotor winged flight.”
The Iven C. Kincheloe Award was established in 1958 in memory of Air Force Test Pilot and SETP member Iven C.Kincheloe to honor exceptional contributions to an aerospace program as a test pilot. The award is sponsored by the Lockheed Martin Corp. The history of previous award winners includes some of the aerospace and aviation industry’s most accomplished and recognized figures in experimental and exploration flight including NASA astronauts from the Space Shuttle and Apollo space program.
The X2 Technology demonstrator has been recognized with a number of aviation, innovation and technology accolades over the past two years including winning the Robert J. Collier Trophy for greatest achievement in aerospace in 2010. In addition, it was chosen by the American Helicopter Society as the winner of the 2011 Hughes Award, given in recognition of an outstanding improvement in fundamental helicopter technology brought to fruition during the preceding calendar year. In April 2011, Professional Pilot magazine named X2 as the “Innovation of the Year.”
The X2 also was previously named one of the Top 10 Technologies to Watch by Aviation Week (January 2010), was awarded a 2009 Breakthrough Award in Innovation from Popular Mechanics magazine, was named One of 2009’s Best Inventions by Time magazine, was identified among the “Best of What’s New” by Popular Science in 2009, and was a finalist for Aviation Week’s Laureate Award in Aerospace and Propulsion.
Mark Miller, Sikorsky Vice President of Research & Engineering, said: “The SETP award is appreciated by the entire Sikorsky workforce as recognition of the great things that can be accomplished with innovative thinking, dedication to the task at hand, and a vision that believes the tough challenges of vertical flight are attainable.”
The X2 Technology program began in 2005 when Sikorsky first committed resources and full funding for the program’s development. 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 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.
Among the innovative technologies the X2 Technology demonstrator employs are:
· Fly-by-wire flight controls
· Counter-rotating rigid rotor blades
· Hub drag reduction
· Active vibration control
· Integrated auxiliary propulsion system
As a “follow-on” to the successful X2 program, Sikorsky Aircraft is continuing development of the next-generation rotary wing technology by launching the S-97™ RAIDER™ program. Sikorsky and select suppliers will design, build, and fly two prototype light tactical helicopters. These prototype vehicles will enable the U.S. armed forces to experience, first hand, the advanced performance capabilities X2 Technology can provide.
Like the X2 Technology demonstrator, the S-97 RAIDER helicopter will feature twin coaxial counter-rotating main rotors and a pusher propeller. In addition to flying at nearly twice the speed of a conventional helicopter, the S-97 RAIDER prototype aircraft will incorporate other key performance parameters critical to combat operations — increased maneuverability, greater endurance, and the ability to operate at high altitudes.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacture, and service. United Technologies Corp., based in Hartford, Conn., provides a broad range of high technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.
View related photo: Kevin Bredenbeck
Thanks,
John Dixson
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Dave_Jackson
IMO, the X2 may have been a marketing program to keep the stock up
Sikorsky X2 press releases (to date): 24
I/C
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kevin Bredenbeck, the pilot who flew the revolutionary X2 Technology™ demonstrator last year to an unofficial speed record for conventional helicopters, has been recognized by the Society of Experimental Test Pilots (SETP) with the Iven C. Kincheloe Award for the year’s outstanding professional accomplishment in the conduct of flight testing.
Was X2 just a publicity stunt? Not really, since it took ABC ideas already demonstrated in XH59 flights and developed them to the point that a helicopter can efficiently operate from hover up to a significant increase in cruising speed. The technology has now caught up with the physical requirements.
Why was X2 consigned to museum after achieving its objective? Because that way it has an umblemished record. This then paves the way for the S97 Raider to be based on flight proven technology.
The data collected from the X2 flights will no doubt be used to improve the design of the S97. This may very well include increased rotor spacing and improved blade aerodynamic optimisation: improved concept design analysis techniques for example. The point is that high cruise speed helicopters that don't compromise the hover are a reality, and the rest is just good engineering.
Last edited by Graviman; 13th Oct 2011 at 11:53. Reason: I am endebted to John Dixon for providing historical perspective on how XH59 concepts found themselves in X2.
The point is that small high cruise speed helicopters that don't compromise the hover are a reality, and the rest is just good engineering
What did the X2 accomplish, performance wise, the XH59A did not also show the world? The devil is in the details.