Eurocopter X3 hybrid
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Svenestron,
To your second point, EC might have been better to follow SAC's lead and only publish still photos (as was done with the X2's 'squirrely' first flight), saving the video for a later flight.
The stated 220 kt speed target is 'interesting' given that a Dauphin with only half the power (and no props) did 200 kts almost 20 years ago.
I/C
To your second point, EC might have been better to follow SAC's lead and only publish still photos (as was done with the X2's 'squirrely' first flight), saving the video for a later flight.
The stated 220 kt speed target is 'interesting' given that a Dauphin with only half the power (and no props) did 200 kts almost 20 years ago.
I/C
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears Carter Aviation has the X2 & X3 beat !
Carter Highlight Video on CarterAviationTechnologies.com
Carter Highlight Video on CarterAviationTechnologies.com
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A major milestone for Eurocopter’s X3 hybrid helicopter
Eurocopter, an EADS company
Step 1 speed objective of 180 kts is attained ahead of schedule for this innovative rotary-wing aircraft.
Step 1 speed objective of 180 kts is attained ahead of schedule for this innovative rotary-wing aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to see how this goes in the future. Good luck EC and I hope it goes well (now about the level of suppport EC will give it......
)
Senior Pilot, it was very instructive of Svenstron and DJ to discuss this old pre war technology as I learned something from it. Thanks. Amazing what the old guys got up to. Did the pilot 'Put in the gasoline'?
)Senior Pilot, it was very instructive of Svenstron and DJ to discuss this old pre war technology as I learned something from it. Thanks. Amazing what the old guys got up to. Did the pilot 'Put in the gasoline'?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you look at the video at about 0'59", with the aircraft flying towards the right of the picture in sunlight, you still notice the vibration in the tail fins that some people commented about. But it seems less pronounced than in the earlier video. In general, the take-off and flight scenes seem more stable and "controlled" (I'll edit the post if I can think of a better word) than the first flights. That suggests they may have done something about structural damping and about their control laws. What do you think?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw the X3 fly in to Eurocopter this morning from Istres, closely followed by the EC175. I really didn't want to like the X3 having seen the photos and videos and the wobble from the hastily cobbled together wings and fins, however in the flesh and after a couple of decent passes it actually looks quite good! Very strange sound though, like a Tucano being chased by an EC155!!! Good luck to Eurocopter with this one, at least they are still innovating and investing in the future of aviation, even if there are some resurrected ideas here.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the Country
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe its still in layup, plans to restart flying towards the end of the month or beginning of May. Eurocopter hope to fly the machine at the Paris Air Show but there are a few hurdles to clear first apparently.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a nice ride!
Eurochopper X3 reaches 232kt in stable forward flight apparently:
Link to the Eurocopter press release
That would be barely 10% less than the Sikorsky X2, a nice trick in any case. What do you think?
Link to the Eurocopter press release
That would be barely 10% less than the Sikorsky X2, a nice trick in any case. What do you think?
I'm not sure of EC's goal here, being a concept should give guidelines to future models; but comparing what they were trying to incorporate in previous helicopters (safety, handling, performance) with cube, it just doesn't add up.
Even as a concept, its very unsafe for ground operations. With that, a lot more mechanical parts of the drive train which probably requires expensive maintenance, large lifting surfaces that don't help with hover performance and it's just not practical.
Genius solutions are simple, this is just a 155 taken from behind by a twin prop plank.
Even as a concept, its very unsafe for ground operations. With that, a lot more mechanical parts of the drive train which probably requires expensive maintenance, large lifting surfaces that don't help with hover performance and it's just not practical.
Genius solutions are simple, this is just a 155 taken from behind by a twin prop plank.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phoinix, why not read the available information before you diss the concept offhand?
Of course it's not unsafe for ground ops, no more than a turboprop plane - remember, those come with props? In fact EC are also planning to use clutches for the props (not sure if they're installed on the concept demonstrator), that makes it even safer than a normal chopper with a tail rotor. Their goal is actually stated quite clearly: Make a helicopter that delivers 50% higher mission revenue for 25% higher cost than today's Dauphin or comparable. If that takes props and a gear, so be it. But of course you'll have two or three easier ways to the same target?
Of course it's not unsafe for ground ops, no more than a turboprop plane - remember, those come with props? In fact EC are also planning to use clutches for the props (not sure if they're installed on the concept demonstrator), that makes it even safer than a normal chopper with a tail rotor. Their goal is actually stated quite clearly: Make a helicopter that delivers 50% higher mission revenue for 25% higher cost than today's Dauphin or comparable. If that takes props and a gear, so be it. But of course you'll have two or three easier ways to the same target?
Last edited by Rengineer; 16th May 2011 at 13:17. Reason: typo
I have read the available info, but that's only numbers, not the design itself.
Even though they plan to use clutches... where does this help in commercial helicopter world, other than A to B?
I expected a bit too much from EC but on the other hand, I was surprised by Sikorsky. It's simple and practical. Although it was used before it was modernized and i think it's more the future I imagined.
I guess we will see what the future brings when the time delivers.
Even though they plan to use clutches... where does this help in commercial helicopter world, other than A to B?
I expected a bit too much from EC but on the other hand, I was surprised by Sikorsky. It's simple and practical. Although it was used before it was modernized and i think it's more the future I imagined.
I guess we will see what the future brings when the time delivers.
However, very much of the speed gain I would attribute to the very narrow and aerodynamic fuselage.
IMHO if you add a reasonable cabin which has any use for commercial utilization, it will get nowhere near 200kts.
Drag will rise dramatically and the air stream to the pusher will get really dirty. Directional stability will suffer as well.
The x^3 I consider also a vicotry of thrust over aerodynamics. However it has at least a useful cabin. In that regard, they are one step ahead of Sikorsky.
Here's really curious about any practical usages for both designs.
The x^3 I consider also a vicotry of thrust over aerodynamics. However it has at least a useful cabin. In that regard, they are one step ahead of Sikorsky.
Here's really curious about any practical usages for both designs.
Here's really curious about any practical usages for both designs.
I wonder if that mission won't become a UAV heavy mission in the next generation.
Not so sure about larger "transport" X2 ideas, as the cube/square relationships begin to create problems as dimensions increase.
henra, I see some promo now and again from Sikorsky about the X2 idea aimed at "next generation" manned scout/attack helicopter ... I'd expect internal weapons pylons, like with Comanche, for their performance to remain valid in the speed metrics they'll try to sell the idea with.
And speed is of great value.
But for commercial applications I have some difficulties to figure out a realistic market. That's mostly about cabin space, useful load and low operating costs / efficient, easy maintenance.
Looking at it, I would say it doesn't shine in any one of those criteria (That applies to a certain extent to both designs, albeit a little less for the x^3).
It would seem from a simple view that the X^3 has the equivalent increase in complexity of adding another tail rotor, while the X2 has the equivalent increase in complexity of adding another main rotor. Either one is a lot simpler than a tilt rotor.
It will be interesting to see which concept can make it to a production model first. When they both have a production model, the true benefit of one over the other will become clear based upon specifications and service history.
-- IFMU
It will be interesting to see which concept can make it to a production model first. When they both have a production model, the true benefit of one over the other will become clear based upon specifications and service history.
-- IFMU