Sikorsky X2 coaxial heli developments.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Age: 74
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just curious what you'd been doing in the ABC? I'd read that they had tested a lot of the X2 concepts using standard helos as a test bed & I wondered how you could test something so radical on a conventional machine?
Originally Posted by 22clipper
I was just curious what you'd been doing in the ABC? I'd read that they had tested a lot of the X2 concepts using standard helos as a test bed & I wondered how you could test something so radical on a conventional machine?
I have followed the X2 in the media. If you go back through the old press releases, they flew X2 FBW on a 333, and lately they show pictures of ground test of a brand new airframe. Don't get confused with that other thread where they talk about that swing tail thing, that was old news.
I saw a clip from aintv, with an interview from Jeffrey Pino. He said that they had all the parts collected & the fuselage built or something like that.
http://www.aintv.com/home.asp?CATEGO...&ID=112&FMT=WM
There is a little X2 animation, apparently from their HAI booth, but that was the only X2 picture.
-- IFMU
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22clipper,
The old ABC demonstrator flew in the 1970's and early 80's and was the predecessor of the X2. Here is Dave's excellent site:
http://www.unicopter.com/0891.html
The X2 plan is to develop the airframe, the FBW controls and then the X2 rotor, so it is being flown that way. The first two steps have been accomplished, the third is approaching (the blades are going thru qualification, I think, and flight test is being planned).
The old ABC demonstrator flew in the 1970's and early 80's and was the predecessor of the X2. Here is Dave's excellent site:
http://www.unicopter.com/0891.html
The X2 plan is to develop the airframe, the FBW controls and then the X2 rotor, so it is being flown that way. The first two steps have been accomplished, the third is approaching (the blades are going thru qualification, I think, and flight test is being planned).
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following patent was issued today;
US 7,229,251 ~ Rotor hub fairing system for a counter-rotating, coaxial rotor system
US 7,229,251 ~ Rotor hub fairing system for a counter-rotating, coaxial rotor system
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sikorsky Cypher?
This may be off base on this thread but the Sikorsky Cypher slowly faded and it was a counter-rotating vehicle, though unmanned. What ever became of it and besides not having a pusher and the noise issue, was it of any help with this new aircraft? Nick? Jack?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan,
The Cypher fell to company decisions on where the UAV future was, back in 2001. The Cypher was small and inexpensive (so that many units had to be built and sold to make any appreciable profit) but engineering labor intensive, so it was put on the back burner.
The Cypher fell to company decisions on where the UAV future was, back in 2001. The Cypher was small and inexpensive (so that many units had to be built and sold to make any appreciable profit) but engineering labor intensive, so it was put on the back burner.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This posting is placed here in the Sikorsky SX Coaxial thread since the following US Patent Application is including the SX coaxial configuration.
Nick,
As you probably know, I have an interest in the concept of 'Variable Speed Rotors and Propellers', having posted this publicly displayed thread in PPRuNe five months before the filing date of the following Patent Application.
Therefore, it was interesting to read your US patent application 20070125907 ~ Variable speed gearbox with an independently variable speed tail rotor system for a rotary wing aircraft.
A question comes up, which I am sure you can answer.
The patent's tittle includes "...with an independently variable speed tail rotor system for a rotary wing aircraft.". In addition, Claim 2 says "... said tail rotor system at an independently variable speed relative said engine speed.", and Claim 14 says " ... and an independently speed-variable tail rotor system ...".
However, there are no details on this variable-speed tail-rotor ("transitional thrust system 18 and 18' "). In addition, the associated drawings only show a blank box.
I understand that the US Patent Office does not review the Claims in a Patent Application, but my question is why is there an 'all-encompassing' claim in the patent application?
Dave
____________________
Nick,
As you probably know, I have an interest in the concept of 'Variable Speed Rotors and Propellers', having posted this publicly displayed thread in PPRuNe five months before the filing date of the following Patent Application.
Therefore, it was interesting to read your US patent application 20070125907 ~ Variable speed gearbox with an independently variable speed tail rotor system for a rotary wing aircraft.
A question comes up, which I am sure you can answer.
The patent's tittle includes "...with an independently variable speed tail rotor system for a rotary wing aircraft.". In addition, Claim 2 says "... said tail rotor system at an independently variable speed relative said engine speed.", and Claim 14 says " ... and an independently speed-variable tail rotor system ...".
However, there are no details on this variable-speed tail-rotor ("transitional thrust system 18 and 18' "). In addition, the associated drawings only show a blank box.
I understand that the US Patent Office does not review the Claims in a Patent Application, but my question is why is there an 'all-encompassing' claim in the patent application?
Dave
Dan,
There was another Cypher, it had a pusher:
And according to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-69
There is this:
-- IFMU
There was another Cypher, it had a pusher:
And according to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-69
There is this:
... the Cypher UAV which expanded company knowledge of the unique aspects of flight control laws in a fly by wire aircraft that employed coaxial rotors ...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
The prior art in that field is vast. The work that was documented to support that and previous patent applications dates back years before your thread (it was while I was at Sikorsky, and I left months before your thread, for example.)
Not being a patent expert, I can't comment on how claims are worded or handled. Like the Michael Keaton character in "NIght Shift" I'm the idea man....
"What if you mix the mayonnaise in the can, WITH the tunafish? Or... hold it! Chuck! I got it! Take LIVE tuna fish, and FEED 'em mayonnaise! Oh this is great. [speaks into tape recorder] Call Starkist!"
The prior art in that field is vast. The work that was documented to support that and previous patent applications dates back years before your thread (it was while I was at Sikorsky, and I left months before your thread, for example.)
Not being a patent expert, I can't comment on how claims are worded or handled. Like the Michael Keaton character in "NIght Shift" I'm the idea man....
"What if you mix the mayonnaise in the can, WITH the tunafish? Or... hold it! Chuck! I got it! Take LIVE tuna fish, and FEED 'em mayonnaise! Oh this is great. [speaks into tape recorder] Call Starkist!"
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how many patents do get through - especially the overunity energy claims etc. It is difficult to really invent something new, since most ideas are a new application for an old concept. Must make patenting process more difficult to control.
With the headache that patenting presents to the private inventor, the thing that seperates a good company from a bad company is finantial reward for a patent which is incorperated. This encourages thought outside the box.
With the headache that patenting presents to the private inventor, the thing that seperates a good company from a bad company is finantial reward for a patent which is incorperated. This encourages thought outside the box.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps your departure from Sikorsky resulted in the legal objectives overriding your technical objectives, when the lawyer was writing the Patent Application.
Incidentally, your Patent Application includes a coaxial configuration drawing. This drawing was used six months earlier in three coaxial-ABC Patent Applications. In your Patent Application, the lawyer, perhaps in a rush to pump out coaxial-ABC patents, didn't even reference the text to this drawing correctly.
Mart,
Times have changed.
Recently, much has been written about the growing abuse of US patent system and its inability to now serve its basic objectives.
Yesterday's article in the highly respected Globe & Mail 'Tech Crusaders Are No Match For Mighty U.S. Patent Lobby' is just one more example. The year-by-year increase in number of US patents is phenomenal. Most of these patents are insignificant drivel. However, one of the things they do is allow large corporations to use their vast wealth as the hammer, and their irrelevant patent as the excuse, to 'squash' the under-funded legitimate invention.
You may find the last line in this quote from the above article of specific interest.
"The U.S. drug industry has no interest in anything remotely approaching an overhaul. It is lobbying furiously behind the scenes to make sure this legislation dies or is seriously diluted. Joining the drug companies are a broad group of blue-chip manufacturers, including United Technologies and 3M Co."
Dave
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps your departure from Sikorsky resulted in the legal objectives overriding your technical objectives, when the lawyer was writing the Patent Application.
Incidentally, your Patent Application includes a coaxial configuration drawing. This drawing was used six months earlier in three coaxial-ABC Patent Applications. In your Patent Application, the lawyer, perhaps in a rush to pump out coaxial-ABC patents, didn't even reference the text to this drawing correctly.
Mart,
Times have changed.
Recently, much has been written about the growing abuse of US patent system and its inability to now serve its basic objectives.
Yesterday's article in the highly respected Globe & Mail 'Tech Crusaders Are No Match For Mighty U.S. Patent Lobby' is just one more example. The year-by-year increase in number of US patents is phenomenal. Most of these patents are insignificant drivel. However, one of the things they do is allow large corporations to use their vast wealth as the hammer, and their irrelevant patent as the excuse, to 'squash' the under-funded legitimate invention.
You may find the last line in this quote from the above article of specific interest.
"The U.S. drug industry has no interest in anything remotely approaching an overhaul. It is lobbying furiously behind the scenes to make sure this legislation dies or is seriously diluted. Joining the drug companies are a broad group of blue-chip manufacturers, including United Technologies and 3M Co."
Dave
