S97 Raider
Funny, I thought that was Dave who did the structural design. We had many Daves on the program but one was the rotors structural designer. Ashish's aero design was a masterwork.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 10th Apr 2017 at 21:46. Reason: Insert YouTube link
This just got posted by Lockheed.
https://youtu.be/yuStvGT1aFA
https://youtu.be/yuStvGT1aFA
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If the S-97 program does end up being shelved, it raises the interesting question of that $50 million or so funded by the 35 companies in the supplier team (responsible for 25% of the program's $200 million cost). Did this contribution buy all 35 of the suppliers a seat on the SB>1, or will some of them just have to write it off as a lottery ticket that didn't pay out this time around?
I/C
I/C
Nifty marketing video aside, hard to imagine a folding rigid rotor. I doubt interference with the fairing would be the biggest technical challenge. With no articulation the loads there are elevated.
SINGLE ACTUATOR BLADE FOLD LINKAGE
NON-LOADED MANUAL BLADE FOLD ASSEMBLY
Can anyone more familiar with the situation clarify whether this video shows additional flights or is it a creative montage of images from the initial flight?
I've heard nothing about any additional S-97 flight testing, so was surprised by this release.
I've heard nothing about any additional S-97 flight testing, so was surprised by this release.
As it shows being beyond the airport perimeter it must be very recent flights. Looks like they finally met their May 2015 objectives. The "high speed" flyby looked pretty slow and the maneuvers minimal.
With SB1 reported to be at least a year late and the Bell V280 approaching being readied for ground and flight tests this year they had to do something.
With SB1 reported to be at least a year late and the Bell V280 approaching being readied for ground and flight tests this year they had to do something.
It seems safe to assume that they haven't met the speed goal yet, otherwise it would be more prominently advertised. Still, the program continues. Looks good with the gear up and the slick engine installation. Video shows perhaps a bit over 45 AoB? Not really aggressive but demonstrating more maneuverability than the X2TD did. Not sure what the XH-59A demoed back in the day.
Blade fold on a rigid rotor is certainly possible... just a pain. But anyone who has done blade fold knows it's always a pain.
Remember when the comments were that they'd never get that inter rotor fairing to stay straight? :-)
Blade fold on a rigid rotor is certainly possible... just a pain. But anyone who has done blade fold knows it's always a pain.
Remember when the comments were that they'd never get that inter rotor fairing to stay straight? :-)
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...nt-fly-in-2017
Article admits what we've all suspected, Defiant is behind schedule. States Raider flew in March, so there's opportunity for what appear to be off airport property flights since the last acknowledged flights from last fall.
Article admits what we've all suspected, Defiant is behind schedule. States Raider flew in March, so there's opportunity for what appear to be off airport property flights since the last acknowledged flights from last fall.
A schedule delay announcement starring contest?
Defiant delayed: Joint multi-role demonstrator won?t fly in 2017
Article admits what we've all suspected, Defiant is behind schedule. States.
Article admits what we've all suspected, Defiant is behind schedule. States.
I don't think S and B upper management were in the dark about this. They are a good company with smart people in charge.
I can only guess that Defiant management was playing the equivalent of a starring contest with the Bell V-280 program. S and B hoped Bell would blink first and ask the government for an contract extension first. Problem for the Defiant program was Bell appeared to be meeting schedule.
With only months remaining before the truth would be obvious to all Sikorsky and Boeing blinked.
Running into technical or procurement difficulties is understandable. Holding back information that your program is a year behind schedule until a few months before first flight is unacceptable contractor behavior.
The schedule is pretty flexible, as this is a long term fleet renewal oriented development.
So I think taking time up from to make the right decisions is very appropriate. Costs are largely determined by these early choices, so this is the best chance for getting it right.
These rationalizations aside, it is also a reality that Boeing has been late and over budget on almost all its developments, both civil as well as military, throughout this century. So it would be surprising if this project, which is projected to scale a concept from a 6,000 pound vehicle to something in the 30,000 pound class, were not to experience substantial slippage and cost growth.
So I think taking time up from to make the right decisions is very appropriate. Costs are largely determined by these early choices, so this is the best chance for getting it right.
These rationalizations aside, it is also a reality that Boeing has been late and over budget on almost all its developments, both civil as well as military, throughout this century. So it would be surprising if this project, which is projected to scale a concept from a 6,000 pound vehicle to something in the 30,000 pound class, were not to experience substantial slippage and cost growth.
