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.
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.
Originally Posted by SansAnhedral
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.
Originally Posted by The Sultan
Reported:
Lockheed does not appear confident in Sikorsky's ability to pull off the SB1 and is looking to acquire the V280.
Lockheed does not appear confident in Sikorsky's ability to pull off the SB1 and is looking to acquire the V280.
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 21:18.
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?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Hard Landing"
Originally Posted by The Sultan
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?
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?
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...)
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
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
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off-topic, what's this, A mile to the north east...?!
Originally Posted by IFMU
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vzlet
A radar cross section testing range? Perhaps from the Comanche era?
ed: Or are you asking about the "diamond" shapes?
ed: Or are you asking about the "diamond" shapes?
