S97 Raider
The US Army thinking from Vietnam controlled their requirements for hover and climb for the UTTAS. Specifically, they required, from an HOGE hover at design gross weight, and at 4000'Hp/95F, a vertical climb of 500 ft/min utilizing 95% of rated power.
The JMR conditions I believe are now 6000'/95F, but in any case, if their thinking follows past indications, it will be climb from an HOGE hover, not at forward speed that will be a main requirement.
The JMR conditions I believe are now 6000'/95F, but in any case, if their thinking follows past indications, it will be climb from an HOGE hover, not at forward speed that will be a main requirement.
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.
Sans, is the JMR requirements document available in the public domain? I would think that it would be.
Lockheed Not Impressed?
Reported:
Lockheed does not appear confident in Sikorsky's ability to pull off the SB1 and is looking to acquire the V280.
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.
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.
A 75-100% increase would indeed be in another class.
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.
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
S-97 Raider helicopter makes a hard landing at the Sikorsky Development Flight Center - wptv.com
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 2nd Aug 2017 at 22:18.
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?
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
Could not tell from photo on landing gear position. Looks like it was up. Question: Who hovers over a runway with the gear up?
"Hard Landing"
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.
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.
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...)
@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...)
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...)
@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...)
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.
had an engine roll back
the gear failed to extend
Slightly off-topic, what's this, A mile to the north east...?!
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.
