S97 Raider
Let's stick to the facts
Let's try an stick to the facts.
Two companies/teams were selected by the DOD to build JMR demonstrator aircraft, Bell and the Sikorsky-Boeing team.
By customer requirement BOTH contract recipients committed to flying their aircraft by the last quarter of 2017.
During contract negotiations Bell requested additional schedule time to achieve first flight. The DOD refused however because the Sikorsky Boeing team claimed they could meet the 2017 first flight date.
Now just months before the comitted fly date the Sikorsky Boeing team reveals they are at least half a year behind schedule.
I have good friends at Sikorsky, Boeing and Bell. And in my 40 years in aerospace I have worked for or been a supplier to all three companies.
Sikorsky and Boeing upon being selected for a JMR contract was declared the dream team by the media, and the media questioned how Bell could even compete against the two largest defense companies in the US.
Time will tell which aircraft, if any is ever selected for production. But if I was the US Army I would give preference to the supplier that was open, honest, and busted their tails to meet contract commitments.
Two companies/teams were selected by the DOD to build JMR demonstrator aircraft, Bell and the Sikorsky-Boeing team.
By customer requirement BOTH contract recipients committed to flying their aircraft by the last quarter of 2017.
During contract negotiations Bell requested additional schedule time to achieve first flight. The DOD refused however because the Sikorsky Boeing team claimed they could meet the 2017 first flight date.
Now just months before the comitted fly date the Sikorsky Boeing team reveals they are at least half a year behind schedule.
I have good friends at Sikorsky, Boeing and Bell. And in my 40 years in aerospace I have worked for or been a supplier to all three companies.
Sikorsky and Boeing upon being selected for a JMR contract was declared the dream team by the media, and the media questioned how Bell could even compete against the two largest defense companies in the US.
Time will tell which aircraft, if any is ever selected for production. But if I was the US Army I would give preference to the supplier that was open, honest, and busted their tails to meet contract commitments.
I don't think there is an advanced technology rotor craft without cringe worthy weaknesses. So it is pointless to harp on the various failures, there have been lots, widely distributed.
The issue here is that the Army is trying to advance the performance of VTOL aircraft.
That will take effort, but we all know that without a schedule, nothing ever gets done.
So there is a schedule and SB has failed to meet it.
That will cost them some, no doubt, but that is peripheral. The main question is whether there is some really fundamental flaw inhibiting the scale up of the co axial rotor concept.
The issue here is that the Army is trying to advance the performance of VTOL aircraft.
That will take effort, but we all know that without a schedule, nothing ever gets done.
So there is a schedule and SB has failed to meet it.
That will cost them some, no doubt, but that is peripheral. The main question is whether there is some really fundamental flaw inhibiting the scale up of the co axial rotor concept.
I enjoy all the sniping about schedule here, as if the aircraft for the year 2030 will be decided by 5 months in 2017!
I do note that the fans of tilt rotors don't specify the tremendous difficulty the Osprey is having in the real world.
I wonder if the JMR design requires the aircraft to both arrive at the destination and also come home. If so, is a "proven" tilt rotor at a disadvantage? Does the US Army require aircraft that can do a round trip?
US Marine Osprey crashes off Japan, 5 rescued, US officials say | Fox News
https://theaviationist.com/2017/01/2...d-on-al-qaeda/
I do note that the fans of tilt rotors don't specify the tremendous difficulty the Osprey is having in the real world.
I wonder if the JMR design requires the aircraft to both arrive at the destination and also come home. If so, is a "proven" tilt rotor at a disadvantage? Does the US Army require aircraft that can do a round trip?
US Marine Osprey crashes off Japan, 5 rescued, US officials say | Fox News
https://theaviationist.com/2017/01/2...d-on-al-qaeda/
rj is just upset that the pprune V-22 thread of years has gone quiet while the aircraft continues to rack up hundreds of thousands of hours of flight time and remains the USMC's most in-demand aircraft and nearly its safest...so he has to try and steer the conversation on the S97 thread to the Osprey for some unknown reason. Even SAS came out of the woodwork after hearing some some good old fashioned V22 trash talk. Its like the halcyon days of 2011 huh guys!
If one wants to get so pedantic and irrelevant...at least the Yemen V-22 went down in combat with no loss of life, while the venerable UH-60 crashes in clear air onto golf courses killing our servicemen. What a "national embarrassment", or am I just immune?
Sans,
The Marines have hung their hat on the V-22.....of course it continues to rack up flying hours......what else could it do?
That a Blackhawk crash killed a crew member is not surprising as that happens in crashes just as there have been fatalities in Osprey crashes.
So what's your point?
The Marines have hung their hat on the V-22.....of course it continues to rack up flying hours......what else could it do?
That a Blackhawk crash killed a crew member is not surprising as that happens in crashes just as there have been fatalities in Osprey crashes.
So what's your point?
The point, succinctly (and rather obviously), is that the V-22 is hardly having "tremendous difficulty" nor is it a "national embarrassment".
It also belongs in a discussion of the S-97 about as much as the UH-60.
It also belongs in a discussion of the S-97 about as much as the UH-60.
I was pointing to the schedule slippage and the fact most experimental programs have delays for various reasons......and the V-22 certainly qualified for those criticisms!
Acting as though the S-97 should be immune at this very early stage seems a bit unfair.
I seem to recall the V-22 Program almost being ended due to some very serious deficiencies.....that killed peoplle and that was well into the program.
The 97 has a long way to go yet to get to either point.
Acting as though the S-97 should be immune at this very early stage seems a bit unfair.
I seem to recall the V-22 Program almost being ended due to some very serious deficiencies.....that killed peoplle and that was well into the program.
The 97 has a long way to go yet to get to either point.
I don't think anyone is claiming the S-97 should be immune to anything. But let's not pretend this is an isolated "slip" in a vacuum.
This is a discussion of a suspicious delay of a flight test programme relative to its stated objectives, its immediate predecessor X2, in addition to a publicly announced delay of a growth version of the same technology with SB1....all under the guise from the manufacturer that there are no technical issues (or more to the point, no scaling issues).
Comparisons to the V-22 program of record are not germane to discussion for myriad reasons.
This is a discussion of a suspicious delay of a flight test programme relative to its stated objectives, its immediate predecessor X2, in addition to a publicly announced delay of a growth version of the same technology with SB1....all under the guise from the manufacturer that there are no technical issues (or more to the point, no scaling issues).
Comparisons to the V-22 program of record are not germane to discussion for myriad reasons.
Why "suspicious"?
In your mind and ,Sultan's ,who as we all know likes nothing with "Sikorsky" labels afixed to it.
In your mind and ,Sultan's ,who as we all know likes nothing with "Sikorsky" labels afixed to it.
SAS
One month delay after first flight is normal for instrumentation refinement.
Six month delay points to need to improve parts.
Two year delay looks like a major problem which requires significant design changes.
Since the 97 was to be used for SB1 risk reduction, it explains the major schedule slip of SB1. The question is how many other problems will be encountered growing the concept another factor of three?
One month delay after first flight is normal for instrumentation refinement.
Six month delay points to need to improve parts.
Two year delay looks like a major problem which requires significant design changes.
Since the 97 was to be used for SB1 risk reduction, it explains the major schedule slip of SB1. The question is how many other problems will be encountered growing the concept another factor of three?
Last edited by The Sultan; 25th Apr 2017 at 00:41.
So what is your theory for why the SB>1 team is "delayed"?
Currently the choices are as follows;
A) Major technical issues with scaling up the X-2 technology (conspiracy theorieists favorite). But that would mean some very smart people in both the government and Boeing would either have been fooled by Sikorsky or complicit in hiding evidence that X-2 technology was flawed.
B) Sikorsky and Boeing mismanaged the Defiant program, either by under funding it, wasting resources, selecting inadequate suppliers, or a combination of the above. This is the Defiant Program management claim, but their wording is "Things didn't go as quickly as we would have liked". Hard to believe the two biggest defense contractors in the US are that inept.
C) Intentional program delay by Sikorsky and Boeing management to insure continued sales of their existing products to the DOD. Another conspiracy theorists favorite.
D) ?????
Maybe we can have a vote?
Have fun
Perhaps....it is exactly what they say it is.....ever thought of that?
I'll float an option D. Engineering said "it will take X amount of time." Management said "no it won't."
Just a guess, as I am not part of Sikorsky any longer. Nor do I have any knowledge as to why there are delays. I still think it is an awesome machine. If Bell can fly their machine to their schedule my hat is off to them.
Just a guess, as I am not part of Sikorsky any longer. Nor do I have any knowledge as to why there are delays. I still think it is an awesome machine. If Bell can fly their machine to their schedule my hat is off to them.
Did the crash of the 525 at Bell cause a delay to that program?
How about the 609 Crash in Italy....any delay there?
I don't hear any concern being voiced over those programs?
How many delays were there in the V-22 Program?
There is no mention of BAE yet....they certainly are known for problems!
How about the 609 Crash in Italy....any delay there?
I don't hear any concern being voiced over those programs?
How many delays were there in the V-22 Program?
There is no mention of BAE yet....they certainly are known for problems!
Perhaps....it is exactly what they say it is.....ever thought of that?
When there have been persistent questions regarding the scalability of new technology by those in the industry, and subsequently your first upscaled project does not meet its self-imposed timeline by a large margin, followed by the further upscaled project getting "officially" delayed for every reason other than technical - yes that's suspicious to observers.
PS. Did X2 perform any of the high-G maneuvers advertised by SAC with ABC tech in its 23 hours of flight? It, as well as XH-59, did a lot of straight line speeds and sustained turns, but nothing approaching whats shown in all the PR renderings.
I believe that "we need this baby next month, get 9 women on it" would not fall into under funding or supplier mismanagement. And, it's not a vote, just another possible cause.