Sikorsky X2 coaxial heli developments.
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: tehran
hello,
as i have seen in coaxial helicopter rotors the second swashplate which works for upper rotor is located between lower and upper rotors but in sikorsky x2 it is not visible between the rotors certainly upper rotor swashplate is inside
please tell where is its location and also how does it perfomance for cyclic and collective pitch??
thanks alot
as i have seen in coaxial helicopter rotors the second swashplate which works for upper rotor is located between lower and upper rotors but in sikorsky x2 it is not visible between the rotors certainly upper rotor swashplate is inside
please tell where is its location and also how does it perfomance for cyclic and collective pitch??
thanks alot
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 11
Likes: 3
From: US
Sad
Too bad the original X2 team wasn’t left in charge because it would have continued on to develop the Y variant X2 with 2 engines they envisioned and designed. It was a S76 sized aircraft and would have proved a viable X2 platform for production. But the Army paper chase and government requirements got the program derailed and developing the wrong aircraft. So here we are today near 15 years later and no X2 aircraft flying. Got to love the lack of investment of Lockheed and its inability to invest in itself and be a Commerical company. They destroyed the S76D and the S92 platforms. As for the S92 they did finally field the VH92 and without now no Lockheed commercial S92 market just think the money it will cost to keep that not in production platform flying. Good one Lockheed your making the money and have no Commerical risk but a government contract to keep an VH92 aircraft flying for not millions but now billions.
Please sell Sikorsky to Raytheon and get a President of Sikorsky in place that knows how to build helicopters and innovate without the government seed money to chase BS requirements.
Please sell Sikorsky to Raytheon and get a President of Sikorsky in place that knows how to build helicopters and innovate without the government seed money to chase BS requirements.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 289
From: Poplar Grove, IL, USA
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 88
Likes: 18
From: USA
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 300
Likes: 42
From: Texas
Remember that the X2 completed only 22 flight hours over 23 test flights. Compare this to the Bell XV-15 which accumulated 530 flight hours on one airframe (700 flight hours total on two aircraft).
Last edited by CTR; 10th September 2024 at 15:33. Reason: Correction to XV-15 flight hours
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 258
Likes: 58
From: USA
Too bad the original X2 team wasn’t left in charge because it would have continued on to develop the Y variant X2 with 2 engines they envisioned and designed. It was a S76 sized aircraft and would have proved a viable X2 platform for production. But the Army paper chase and government requirements got the program derailed and developing the wrong aircraft. So here we are today near 15 years later and no X2 aircraft flying. Got to love the lack of investment of Lockheed and its inability to invest in itself and be a Commerical company. They destroyed the S76D and the S92 platforms. As for the S92 they did finally field the VH92 and without now no Lockheed commercial S92 market just think the money it will cost to keep that not in production platform flying. Good one Lockheed your making the money and have no Commerical risk but a government contract to keep an VH92 aircraft flying for not millions but now billions.
Please sell Sikorsky to Raytheon and get a President of Sikorsky in place that knows how to build helicopters and innovate without the government seed money to chase BS requirements.
Please sell Sikorsky to Raytheon and get a President of Sikorsky in place that knows how to build helicopters and innovate without the government seed money to chase BS requirements.
Issues with Innovations and management aside, it's the technology that was fundamentally flawed for a practically sized aircraft. The "X-2 Mafia" may have damn near crippled the company and Lockheed's abandonment of the civil market was just another body blow. Sad state for the company.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 300
Likes: 42
From: Texas
X2 Crew of Two?
These latest posts got me looking back at photos and articles on the X2 from over a decade ago. I had forgotten that the X2 was configured for a crew of two. But I have never seen a photo or read an article mentioning a flight test with two crew on board.
Was the aircraft ever flown with two on board?
Was the aircraft ever flown with two on board?
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 289
From: Poplar Grove, IL, USA
These latest posts got me looking back at photos and articles on the X2 from over a decade ago. I had forgotten that the X2 was configured for a crew of two. But I have never seen a photo or read an article mentioning a flight test with two crew on board.
Was the aircraft ever flown with two on board?
Was the aircraft ever flown with two on board?
Regarding the small size, that was decided by some poor management in the belief that smaller is cheaper. Some of the same people that screwed Sikorsky up so much that UTC decided to sell it off.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 300
Likes: 42
From: Texas
Missed Opportunity?
I wonder if Sikorsky missed and is still missing an opportunity to develop X2 technology into a viable product.
With FARA dead, and the lessons learned from the Ukraine Russia war, would developing a small unmanned drone using X2 technology make sense? Perhaps an aircraft in the 4 to 7 thousand pound range. Large enough to carry traditional manned aircraft weapons and sensors packages.
With FARA dead, and the lessons learned from the Ukraine Russia war, would developing a small unmanned drone using X2 technology make sense? Perhaps an aircraft in the 4 to 7 thousand pound range. Large enough to carry traditional manned aircraft weapons and sensors packages.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 289
From: Poplar Grove, IL, USA
I wonder if Sikorsky missed and is still missing an opportunity to develop X2 technology into a viable product.
With FARA dead, and the lessons learned from the Ukraine Russia war, would developing a small unmanned drone using X2 technology make sense? Perhaps an aircraft in the 4 to 7 thousand pound range. Large enough to carry traditional manned aircraft weapons and sensors packages.
With FARA dead, and the lessons learned from the Ukraine Russia war, would developing a small unmanned drone using X2 technology make sense? Perhaps an aircraft in the 4 to 7 thousand pound range. Large enough to carry traditional manned aircraft weapons and sensors packages.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 11
Likes: 3
From: US
The X2 program was shutdown to have the new team focus on the Army requirements chase with the S97 a single engine out of the chalks platform designed well short of the X2 capabilities. Then another Army paper chase with SB-101 Defiant and a scaling of the X2 to the point beyond the capabilities of the physics and weight we all knew. Again the X2 team was pushed aside so the so called experts could be the heroes. As for the vibe issues on S97 that again was experts not in tune to listening. The airframe structure was under designed and the aircraft fell short of what was envisioned and to be developed by the X2 team. Many a X2 member saw the writing on the wall with Sikorsky and Lockheed and departed knowing this was going to be another program feeding on requirements and government money to end up with no viable aircraft.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 11
Likes: 3
From: US
The aircraft was only ground run with two folks on board. The risk and speed of the development the team decided to only have one pilot on board for the envelope expansion. At the completion of the 22 flight which proved all the KPPs the X2 was to get a new set of rotor blades and new AFCS. From that point the speed was to be expanded out to 300 knots being it had the remaining power, then the manuvering envelope was to be developed and then after that the team envisioned that would to have a crew of two for demonstrations of the design. Again the X2 program was ended by the experts to focus on S97 and the SB101.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 11
Likes: 3
From: US
SAD
This post back in 2022 on the S97 Raider Thread #475 remains the best summary. Again truly sad.
Let’s remember the Sikorsky of Lockheed isn’t the Sikorsky of X2 days. The whole concept has lost its way since the triad of Lockheed Boeing and it’s Sikorsky bench warmers have been pushed aside. It started with Raider when the X2 team was pushed aside by its own leadership at the time for the next team to show anyone to include the X2 team it’s easy. So Raider went down the so called experts route chasing Army supposed dreams and requirements instead of letting the original X2 team do the Y next version of the X2.
The X2 was fast, smooth at the time it flew its speed flight. But after that speed flight the X2 team lost control of the X2 destiny to the marketing and program future chasers and the so called next team of Raider.
X2 was to finish its speed test flights and maneuvering flights to close out the modeling of an X2. It went over 250 kts at cruise 71 % power and it had speed and power remaining, vibes were good and the matrix set up for the AVCs was ingenious and set the stage for the Y aircraft. The X2 team had about 9 flights remaining but as mentioned the team was basically shutdown by leadership now chasing their idea of the Raider.
The X2 team wanted to after those 9 close out flights put a new design set of rotor blades on the X2, install a real AFCS system, an active tail and active collective to truely close out the X2 design model. The Y version the X2 team envisioned was a two engine S76 sized aircraft with a gross weight ~ 13 to 14000 lbs. But good things end when good things happen due to so called self proclaimed experts and leaders that have self in mind instead of promoting and supporting the real experts to move forward to get it done and accomplished.
S97 out of the gate was the wrong aircraft, one engine and no power or payload and capability for true over 200 kt speed or margin. Power to weight to drag basic computations didn’t add up and the aircraft structurally was under designed so it couldn’t do the maneuvers planned for such a capable concept. Then SB1 Defiant came along to scale up a design which we all knew wasn’t a viable path for the concept. So in the end what was good and had potential to change the way the helicopter could fly ended back with Raider and with the triad of Lockheed, Boeing and then the Sikorsky tag alongs chasing stupid Army requirements instead of letting the original X2 team follow thru on the concept and a Y platform aircraft so when it was time we could of offered a viable awesome finished product sooner than later.
The goal of the X2 team was accomplish all KPPs with the X platform on the X2 Demonstrator and then move onto the Y version as mentioned. If they were allowed to progress just think in less than 10 years we would be here today with a viable maneuvering and speed demon weapons platform. But here they are still in the big program paper chase with the so many experts of Lockheed and Boeing and Sikorsky now developing a one engine (still waiting the 15 years now ITEP magic engine) Raider X or FARA FLARA or …… and still a true Y Plane of the X2 has never flown to close out and prove the true viable capabilities of the X2 design and platform.
Again the X2 design and the X2 demonstrator met all its KPPs and if the original team was allowed to continue moving forward on its path the full potential as outlined would be a real accomplishment for the industry. As great as the ACH 66 Comanche now the the X2 follows its fate. Shame we don’t let the small selected group do the development for it has proved over and over in history it can be done.
But here you are design by committee, self proclaimed experts, dream requirements half baked and now in competition in a chase. So
good luck with the chase and the big program burdens. Go slow and drag it out and keep changing requirements as the Army leadership changes and the corporate leadership changes. To bad you don’t let the dedicated smart people move forward.
And really sad UTC sold Sikorsky..
Let’s remember the Sikorsky of Lockheed isn’t the Sikorsky of X2 days. The whole concept has lost its way since the triad of Lockheed Boeing and it’s Sikorsky bench warmers have been pushed aside. It started with Raider when the X2 team was pushed aside by its own leadership at the time for the next team to show anyone to include the X2 team it’s easy. So Raider went down the so called experts route chasing Army supposed dreams and requirements instead of letting the original X2 team do the Y next version of the X2.
The X2 was fast, smooth at the time it flew its speed flight. But after that speed flight the X2 team lost control of the X2 destiny to the marketing and program future chasers and the so called next team of Raider.
X2 was to finish its speed test flights and maneuvering flights to close out the modeling of an X2. It went over 250 kts at cruise 71 % power and it had speed and power remaining, vibes were good and the matrix set up for the AVCs was ingenious and set the stage for the Y aircraft. The X2 team had about 9 flights remaining but as mentioned the team was basically shutdown by leadership now chasing their idea of the Raider.
The X2 team wanted to after those 9 close out flights put a new design set of rotor blades on the X2, install a real AFCS system, an active tail and active collective to truely close out the X2 design model. The Y version the X2 team envisioned was a two engine S76 sized aircraft with a gross weight ~ 13 to 14000 lbs. But good things end when good things happen due to so called self proclaimed experts and leaders that have self in mind instead of promoting and supporting the real experts to move forward to get it done and accomplished.
S97 out of the gate was the wrong aircraft, one engine and no power or payload and capability for true over 200 kt speed or margin. Power to weight to drag basic computations didn’t add up and the aircraft structurally was under designed so it couldn’t do the maneuvers planned for such a capable concept. Then SB1 Defiant came along to scale up a design which we all knew wasn’t a viable path for the concept. So in the end what was good and had potential to change the way the helicopter could fly ended back with Raider and with the triad of Lockheed, Boeing and then the Sikorsky tag alongs chasing stupid Army requirements instead of letting the original X2 team follow thru on the concept and a Y platform aircraft so when it was time we could of offered a viable awesome finished product sooner than later.
The goal of the X2 team was accomplish all KPPs with the X platform on the X2 Demonstrator and then move onto the Y version as mentioned. If they were allowed to progress just think in less than 10 years we would be here today with a viable maneuvering and speed demon weapons platform. But here they are still in the big program paper chase with the so many experts of Lockheed and Boeing and Sikorsky now developing a one engine (still waiting the 15 years now ITEP magic engine) Raider X or FARA FLARA or …… and still a true Y Plane of the X2 has never flown to close out and prove the true viable capabilities of the X2 design and platform.
Again the X2 design and the X2 demonstrator met all its KPPs and if the original team was allowed to continue moving forward on its path the full potential as outlined would be a real accomplishment for the industry. As great as the ACH 66 Comanche now the the X2 follows its fate. Shame we don’t let the small selected group do the development for it has proved over and over in history it can be done.
But here you are design by committee, self proclaimed experts, dream requirements half baked and now in competition in a chase. So
good luck with the chase and the big program burdens. Go slow and drag it out and keep changing requirements as the Army leadership changes and the corporate leadership changes. To bad you don’t let the dedicated smart people move forward.
And really sad UTC sold Sikorsky..
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,336
Likes: 2,184
From: Texas
My current prediction is that the ITEP will get installed in a few years, and then will begin begin making chips in Blackhawk/S-70 transmissions all over the world...
... because nobody in the US Army wants to foot the bill for a UH-60 Main Transmission Redesign and then pay to install it on over 2000 helicopters.Perhaps in a few years when the craze for eVTOL subsides (see the article on the main R&N page) an engineering team can be put together to pursue the Y version of the X2...