Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Eurocopter, 4 new rotorcraft by 2020, X4, X6, X9, ..

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Eurocopter, 4 new rotorcraft by 2020, X4, X6, X9, ..

Old 28th Jan 2015, 01:35
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Best way to introduce a new design is to follow up with orders and deliveries, and most and foremost delivering the performance you promise.
Airbus and Bell are selling vaporware.
I would agree that the delivery delays of most new commercial aircraft products in recent years seems to have gotten completely out of hand. But I would not agree that Airbus and Bell are "selling vaporware" with these marketing videos. From what I have seen the commercial helo market is entering a phase of significant technology development. There are advanced composite structures being widely used for airframes and blades. There are active control systems for improving aerodynamics and significantly reducing NVH. And there are many new turboshaft engine models that will provide significant improvement in power, reliability and fuel economy. These technologies all exist, are ready for use on production aircraft, and we will see them used on the new models from Airbus and Bell that were teased in the videos.
riff_raff is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 14:53
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 74
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not Vaporware:


Sikorsky S-97 Raider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sikorsky, Boeing Expect To Fly JMR Demonstrator in '17 | Defense News | defensenews.com
NickLappos is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2015, 01:50
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NickLappos-

The S-97 prototype rolled out last Oct. sure is a pretty aircraft, and I hope it performs as good as it looks.

Are there any technical developments being used on the S-97 (beyond those obvious from published photos) that you can publicly discuss? There isn't much on the internet and I didn't find anything in the AHS index. I'd love to learn more about the S-97's unique rotor hub arrangement and drivetrain. Has Sikorsky published any technical papers on the rotor hub or drivetrain that are available to the general public?
riff_raff is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2015, 15:32
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 673
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
To date the S-97 has the exact same time aloft as the 53K, X4, and 525...not to mention late itself!

The S-97 hub and drivetrain are derived from the X2, essentially the same. There are numerous ABC patents that illustrate some details.

It appears, from press photos at least, Sikorsky maybe solved the riddle of the sail fairing that never flew on the X2. I suppose we will have to wait until the Raider actually flies to see if thats the case, as the X2 was always photoed with the fairings installed on the ground as well.

And Nick, a 30,000+lb GW rigid rotor ABC coax is still squarely in the vaporware category. I'm sure you can appreciate the scaling issues between the two; as long as Sikorsky keeps spinning the S-97 into only being a "slight" step from SB-1 I am convinced that they will try to use the Raider as the FVL demo aircraft.

It certainly would be embarrassing when they make the requisite changes to get an ABC up to 30,000lb (rotor spacing) and can only fly 170kt due to the massive drag increase.
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2015, 16:05
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If it walks like a duck.....

Tough to compete with a European consortium funded by huge sums of interest-free multi-government-backed loans and grants.
SANS- Are you kidding me? Take a look at how many $BILLIONS have gone to US OEM's as sole source, "single source" competitions or "ECP" upgrades which are a whole new aircraft

VXX, CRH, FVL/JMR, Navy C-2 replacement (V-22), Navy H-60 fleet, Marine H-1 fleet, H-53K, Army TH-67 replacement (new UH-72s) ....... Any questions?

US companies are well taken care of by US gov't backed funding.
Stinger10 is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2015, 16:32
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 673
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
For every sole-source contract awarded in the US there are equal numbers awarded in the Eurozone.

What I am referring to are state sponsored industry consortiums that are funded for decades-long pie-in-the sky R&D projects - something which most certainly does not happen on the same scale in the USA. IRAD money is a trickle in comparison, especially considering civilian applications.

Consider NICETRIP, a civilian-specific program funded entirely by government funding. That would be unheard of in the USA.
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2015, 17:18
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Sans,

The US has had plenty of its own civil-funded programs - AGATE, GAP, SATS etc. - though the funding associated with Clean Sky 2 is eye-watering, to say the least ($1.99 Bn).

I wouldn't agree with IRAD being a trickle, though. As we know, Bell spent "roughly $300 million or more" of taxpayers' money on the BA609 (before handing the program to AW), and having seen first-hand a top-tier OEM deciding what to expense against IRAD each year, the word boondoggle comes to mind.

I/C
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2015, 11:58
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the big blue planet
Posts: 1,002
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Next video:



skadi
skadi is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2015, 17:57
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NICETRIP

sans- You're right because the "real" money and unlimited revenue stream without any expectation of ROI is in DoD where as I pointed out there is NO shortage of US Gov't subsidization aka: Sole source contracts/Single source solicitations

You can't be suggesting that revenue gained, without the need of expending company resources to win the gov't business (because the award was sole-source or single competitor), doesn't get rolled back into commercial endeavors?

Just look at the open "UH-60 checkbook" the gov't has supplied Sik. and tell me that they haven't rolled any of those $$ into other R&D efforts (including civil S-76D, or S-92) ? ..... and I don't criticize them for doing it either. Revenue should be plowed back into R&D.

WE should really watch how self-righteous WE are about this topic.

Competition in DoD is really a UNICORN. Frequently discussed, but rarely seen......
Stinger10 is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2015, 22:14
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 673
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Well it appears we are in agreement....because every aspect of defense procurement you are bemoaning with the USA occurs in European defense acquisitions just the same.

The only difference is that, in addition to sole source contracts and rolling profits back into products, we see massive, multi-decadal, multi-billion dollar civilian projects that are directly funded by government cheese without the auspices that it isn't just for the socialist-style employment guarantee and industry development to compete with the USA.

Think Boeing vs Airbus. Airbus enjoys the $2 billion investment the Eurozone makes in Cleansky 2. The counter argument is that Boeing enjoys the profits from US tanker contracts, AH-64, F/A-18, etc. Well, Airbus also enjoys the same funding from their own domestic military contracts like the A400, C295, Eurofighter, etc with the same sort of shenanigans going in contract award.
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:26
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Hmmm Sans Anhedral.This argument is a bit chalk and cheese.What you haven't factored in are the huge orders guaranteed by the U.S. government through direct purchases and subsidised FMS ,compared with Europe. Take the Apache versus Tiger for example or the H-60 family versus NH90.....huge profits for the U.S. industry ,much of which incidentally they have failed in the past to reinvest in R and D.
heli1 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 15:29
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Heli_1 - couldn't have said it better myself

Sans-I believe you were the one who started the conversation bemoaning European subsidization, and now you are simply rationalizing the same "subsidizing-like" activities by the US government. The field is level from that perspective.

Why I said "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."

New AF-1 is another bright shining example. A simple trade study was all the USAF did before deciding that Boeing wins...... I believe the P.M. of the UK flies in a 777. Why not at least challenge Boeing so the taxpayers get the best deal possible?

Does anyone doubt that competition is best for the consumer in a free market?
Stinger10 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 17:59
  #33 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,074
Received 56 Likes on 28 Posts
Airbus quote:

Our latest offering will be in a class by itself. Literally.
There was a highly disliked and delinquent kid from a troubled family background, at our local village school, who was like that.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2015, 19:18
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
And the A-Star has unceremoniously been renamed the H125, among other renaming.

Airbus Helicopters Unveils H160 Medium Twin | Business Aviation: Aviation International News


EC120 Colibri is now H120

AS350 B3e Ecureuil/AStar is now H125

AS355 Ecureuil/TwinStar is now AS355

EC130 is now H130

EC135 is now H135

EC145 is now H145

EC155 is now H155

AS365 Dauphin is now AS365

EC175 is now H175

AS332 Super Puma is now AS332

EC225 Super Puma is now H225
MikeNYC is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2015, 20:23
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Near the source of insanity
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And I thought there was a logical system behind the naming conventions at Eurocopter... I would've expected that a Civilian 6 Ton Twin would be designated as EC165 (or AH165 for that matter...). And designating the AS-350 as H125 would make it a 2-ton civilian twin.
Oh, the French...
Hawkeye0001 is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2015, 09:35
  #36 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 55
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This helipcopter was planned to have a much more radical cockpit and FBW. But it would have be ready for service by 2018.



http://www.ainonline.com/sites/defau...?itok=hcxxz2fC

A few years back new Airbus Helicopter management decided getting to market early had priority. Specially the Agusta Westland helicopters proved very succesfull in this segment.

Operators weren't really demanding the new cockpit / FBW so they let it go to speed up the project.



What will be interesting is if it will really be more quiet, fast and comfortable. It's a head turner anyway.




They have been testing the quiet rotor technology for some years & it seems to really make a difference.


Last edited by keesje; 4th Mar 2015 at 09:39. Reason: add noise youtube
keesje is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 16:39
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,912
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Hawkeye0001 View Post
And I thought there was a logical system behind the naming conventions at Eurocopter... I would've expected that a Civilian 6 Ton Twin would be designated as EC165 (or AH165 for that matter...). And designating the AS-350 as H125 would make it a 2-ton civilian twin.
Oh, the French...
My post from the H160 thread:

Originally Posted by Bravo73 View Post
Also, a small point for the spotters/nerds, H160 seems to change the previous EC naming convention. '1' = civi, '6' = 6 tonnes but '0' = single engine. I would've expected it to be the H165.
Bravo73 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 17:16
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Europe
Age: 58
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Hello Bravo73,

The EC naming convention is over.
We are now in the "H Generation" and that's a mess.

The EC145T2 is now the H145, logical.
But .... the EC145e is now the EC145 ! Why not the H145e ?!
And the AS365N3e is now the AS365N3e !! Same thing for the AS332C1e !!
HeliHenri is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 19:30
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Near the source of insanity
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@Bravo73: Saw. Made me happy to see that I'm not the only nerd around
I really begin to wonder what kind of person is running Airbus Helicopter's marketing department (I'll never get used to that bloated new name...). Eurocopter had such a cool ring to its name... and now this pathetic mess with the new random naming conventions.
Perhaps they should invest all this energy and money into working on their terribly slow product support
Hawkeye0001 is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2015, 09:00
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A place wet and sunny
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"They have been testing the quiet rotor technology for some years & it seems to really make a difference"

But what is the point if they keep on using the noisy fenestron?
On the 120/130 variants it sure is quiet but on a N3/155 the thing seems to make more noise then the main rotor.... Maybe that's just me

RP
Rigging Pin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.