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

S97 Raider

Old 11th May 2017, 16:46
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 603
The likely argument will be that converting from a HOGE hover and accelerating to climb over the same duration for a greater ascent rate would meet the intended performance requirement.
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 11th May 2017, 18:52
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,340
Sans, is the JMR requirements document available in the public domain? I would think that it would be.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 12th May 2017, 04:16
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 545
Lockheed Not Impressed?

Reported:
Shares of industrial and aerospace conglomerate Textron (TXT) jumped more than 3.5% on Thursday as chatter about its possible acquisition by Lockheed (LMT) swept the market.
Lockheed does not appear confident in Sikorsky's ability to pull off the SB1 and is looking to acquire the V280.
The Sultan is online now  
Old 12th May 2017, 05:14
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,562
Excellent.
I'll be able to feel like a steely eyed killer and say I tool around the skies in a Lockheed C-152.
That's quite significant news...
tartare is offline  
Old 12th May 2017, 13:31
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: NW
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by SansAnhedral View Post
AW themselves (and Bell prior) estimated 2500-3000 fpm climb rate publicly, and with quite a bit of flight testing completed to date I have heard this is not far from accurate.

A 75-100% increase would indeed be in another class.
Lets see, that power that wing, does not add up. If they do, fixed wing is out of chart.
Mee3 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2017, 21:49
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
Reported:

Lockheed does not appear confident in Sikorsky's ability to pull off the SB1 and is looking to acquire the V280.
This could be quite interesting. when United Technologies sought to divest itself of Sikorsky, there was some interest from Textron to acquire it. However, the US Gov't let it be known that it wouldn't let that happen for antitrust reasons, as owning both Bell and Sikorsky would give it too large a share of the US helicopter industry, in their opinion. Since foreign complanies would not be allowed to acquire this US strategic asset, Lockheed got it because no one else showed interest.

So one would think that this is the exact same scenario, but maybe with the cnbage in Administrations, opinions could change. If this is true, I suspect it's not so much the SB-1 that disappointed Lockheed, as much as the entire technology it's based on since the record is not good in all its iterations so far .

Of course, keep in mind that Lockheed is already a partner with Bell on the V-280.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2017, 20:46
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 603
Finally some news on the S-97....but not the kind I'm sure Sikorsky prefers. "Hard landing from hover". Crew safe thankfully.

S-97 Raider helicopter makes a hard landing at the Sikorsky Development Flight Center - wptv.com


Last edited by SansAnhedral; 2nd Aug 2017 at 21:18.
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2017, 23:23
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 545
History repeating itself? From Wiki:

The first S-69 built (73-21941) first flew on July 26, 1973. However, it was badly damaged in a low-speed crash on August 24, 1973 due to unexpected rotor forces and insufficient control systems.[2] The airframe was then converted into a wind tunnel testbed
Note: S-69 was first of the Sik coaxials.

Could not tell from photo on landing gear position. Looks like it was up. Question: Who hovers over a runway with the gear up?
The Sultan is online now  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 03:25
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 72
"Hard Landing"

Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
History repeating itself? From Wiki:



Note: S-69 was first of the Sik coaxials.

Could not tell from photo on landing gear position. Looks like it was up. Question: Who hovers over a runway with the gear up?
My guess is the "landing" was hard enough to result in maximum landing gear stroking as the first step in reducing the initial sink rate to one that the crew could tolerate without injury.
Tailspin Turtle is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 12:02
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Poplar Grove, IL, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 834
Can anybody see signs of the gear? They stick out to the side normally. It almost looks more like the gear failed to extend and they elected to set it down on the taxiway.
IFMU is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 12:35
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,262
Sat it down on the Taxiway with the nose sticking out onto the Runway.....really?
SASless is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 13:23
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,340
What if they were hovering, doing some regular thing in a gear up configuration (for whatever reason, I think this is mostly a test aircraft, isn't it?) and had an engine roll back? That would make you settle. Note, this is speculation.
@SASless: I don't think that's a taxiway. No markings. IF that pic is from the West Palm Beach facility, I don't think there are any taxiways there. (Memory foggy, been since the late 90's that I was there...)
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 13:39
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 52
Posts: 4,444
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
What if they were hovering, doing some regular thing in a gear up configuration (for whatever reason, I think this is mostly a test aircraft, isn't it?) and had an engine roll back? That would make you settle. Note, this is speculation.
@SASless: I don't think that's a taxiway. No markings. IF that pic is from the West Palm Beach facility, I don't think there are any taxiways there. (Memory foggy, been since the late 90's that I was there...)
Looks almost certainly to be the westerly of the two parallel taxiways close together almost at the runway centre: https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Sik...!4d-80.3191729
212man is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 14:45
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Poplar Grove, IL, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 834
To me it looks like the road that goes to the ILS shack down at the west end of the runway. True that it is not technically a taxiway, so I misspoke. They had a designated area down there for the Comanche to land if they had gear trouble​.
IFMU is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 14:50
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 545
had an engine roll back
It would be the engine.

the gear failed to extend
Gear failure to extend is not unheard of on test aircraft. On rotor craft which are stable enough to allow it the solution has been to have ground personnel manually extend the gear.
The Sultan is online now  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 15:26
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 611
Slightly off-topic, what's this, A mile to the north east...?!
Nige321 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 16:38
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 118
A radar cross section testing range? Perhaps from the Comanche era?
ed: Or are you asking about the "diamond" shapes?
Vzlet is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 16:50
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 52
Posts: 4,444
Originally Posted by IFMU View Post
To me it looks like the road that goes to the ILS shack down at the west end of the runway. True that it is not technically a taxiway, so I misspoke. They had a designated area down there for the Comanche to land if they had gear trouble​.
I don't think the tree-line or water features match up, plus that large pale rectangular feature in the top right of the photo matches with the google image.
212man is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 18:16
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 611
Originally Posted by Vzlet View Post
A radar cross section testing range? Perhaps from the Comanche era?
ed: Or are you asking about the "diamond" shapes?
The diamond shape 'vehicles'...?
Nige321 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 18:27
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 603
Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
History repeating itself?
The first S-69 built (73-21941) first flew on July 26, 1973. However, it was badly damaged in a low-speed crash on August 24, 1973 due to unexpected rotor forces and insufficient control systems.[2] The airframe was then converted into a wind tunnel testbed






SansAnhedral is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.