S97 Raider
Spline Drive was Right
Raider Ship 2 did fly before the Defiant. What I hadn’t accounted for was Sikorsky and Boeing lobbying to push FVL Capability Set 1 ahead of 3. How Sikorsky can claim however that the S-97 represents a lower risk development than the V-280 is beyond me. Especially since the V-280 has in six months flown more hours and faster than the S-97 achieved in over two years.
In no no way trying to dismiss Sikorsky’s X-2 Technology challenges and achievements. Just getting tired of Washington and defense contractor politics.
In no no way trying to dismiss Sikorsky’s X-2 Technology challenges and achievements. Just getting tired of Washington and defense contractor politics.
S97 Raider
Originally Posted by SansAnhedral
I still maintain that both Sikorsky and Boeing want nothing more than for FVL-M to go away, hence the teaming. Sikorsky wants to sell S97 as FVL-L or as something "off the shelf, ready to go" to replace Kiowa and AAS. They both subsequently convince Uncle Sam that the capability in the medium class can better be accomplished (read: cheaper) with next gen UH-60X and AH-64X to keep those revenue streams alive.
Raider Ship 2 did fly before the Defiant. What I hadn’t accounted for was Sikorsky and Boeing lobbying to push FVL Capability Set 1 ahead of 3. How Sikorsky can claim however that the S-97 represents a lower risk development than the V-280 is beyond me. Especially since the V-280 has in six months flown more hours and faster than the S-97 achieved in over two years.
In no no way trying to dismiss Sikorsky’s X-2 Technology challenges and achievements. Just getting tired of Washington and defense contractor politics.
In no no way trying to dismiss Sikorsky’s X-2 Technology challenges and achievements. Just getting tired of Washington and defense contractor politics.
But now it appears to be a gigantic middle finger to Bell, who to date have done exactly what was asked with their demo - on time and on budget - only to get the Army waffling on whether or not they really are going to go through with CS3 first...or even at all!
I can imagine a scenario where the Army ends up saying "Well we really need that Kiowa replacement because we totally f'ed up by retiring them" and the subsequent procurement of the scouts (especially if they really believe the suspect cost estimates Sikorsky has published on the Raider) eats their budget to such a degree that replacing the mediums will seem like a pipe dream.
It seems unfathomable that the Army would expect OEMs like Bell to absorb the cost of building and flying ANOTHER demonstrator, particularly on this condensed proposed timescale. I don't see how they can afford that - their pockets aren't nearly as deep as LockMart/Boeing.
FARA isnt remotely feasible as a real competition unless the Army is really just looking for a way to buy the S97
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 2nd Jul 2018 at 19:35.
The Airbus Racer would be the competitor to Sikorsky Raider, as a demonstrator is being built. Racer and Tiltrotor have much better fuel burn rate than Sikorsky's X2 technology. After the Army had industry fund the JMR demonstrators, it is totally unacceptable to say forget your investment, we really want something else now. Constantly changing their mind could once again leave the Army getting nothing. The Bell V280 clearly is better than the current Black Hawk, or SB1 Defiant, as a transport aircraft.
S-97 was sized to a mission spec closer to ARH, so it’s quite a bit less capable than the FVL CapSet 1 requirements, but FARA seems like it's possibly in between the two. I doubt S-97 meets the FARA requirements, as-is. The industry has invested quite a bit of money in the Valor and the recent group of rigid coaxials. If any of this yields a program, I have some hope the taxpayers will get a decent deal.
As for cost cost of the S-97 or similar aircraft, the physical cost should be predictable. You’re paying for a second rotor system, a moderately more complex transmission, and a more powerful tail drive system. Those are all estimatable. Like most modern aircraft, the real cost variability is in the fly by wire and mission systems integration, and with the advanced “digital quarterback” feel of the FARA spec, any entrant is going to carry a risk there.
As for cost cost of the S-97 or similar aircraft, the physical cost should be predictable. You’re paying for a second rotor system, a moderately more complex transmission, and a more powerful tail drive system. Those are all estimatable. Like most modern aircraft, the real cost variability is in the fly by wire and mission systems integration, and with the advanced “digital quarterback” feel of the FARA spec, any entrant is going to carry a risk there.
In retrospect, it appears it was dangling the big carrot (4000 aircraft UH-60/AH-64 replacement) to get the OEMs to invest and demonstrate their technology. It also made more sense at the time because it predated the colossal blunder of mothballing the OH-58s.
But now it appears to be a gigantic middle finger to Bell, who to date have done exactly what was asked with their demo - on time and on budget - only to get the Army waffling on whether or not they really are going to go through with CS3 first...or even at all!
I can imagine a scenario where the Army ends up saying "Well we really need that Kiowa replacement because we totally f'ed up by retiring them" and the subsequent procurement of the scouts (especially if they really believe the suspect cost estimates Sikorsky has published on the Raider) eats their budget to such a degree that replacing the mediums will seem like a pipe dream.
It seems unfathomable that the Army would expect OEMs like Bell to absorb the cost of building and flying ANOTHER demonstrator, particularly on this condensed proposed timescale. I don't see how they can afford that - their pockets aren't nearly as deep as LockMart/Boeing.
FARA isnt remotely feasible as a real competition unless the Army is really just looking for a way to buy the S97
But now it appears to be a gigantic middle finger to Bell, who to date have done exactly what was asked with their demo - on time and on budget - only to get the Army waffling on whether or not they really are going to go through with CS3 first...or even at all!
I can imagine a scenario where the Army ends up saying "Well we really need that Kiowa replacement because we totally f'ed up by retiring them" and the subsequent procurement of the scouts (especially if they really believe the suspect cost estimates Sikorsky has published on the Raider) eats their budget to such a degree that replacing the mediums will seem like a pipe dream.
It seems unfathomable that the Army would expect OEMs like Bell to absorb the cost of building and flying ANOTHER demonstrator, particularly on this condensed proposed timescale. I don't see how they can afford that - their pockets aren't nearly as deep as LockMart/Boeing.
FARA isnt remotely feasible as a real competition unless the Army is really just looking for a way to buy the S97
Aside from Army's replacing UH-60/AH-64, USMC has shown significant interest in it as a replacement for UH-1Y and AH-1Z. USN also might be interested. Although the high speed capabilities aren't as important, to USN, the range and endurance would be and commonality with USN would be a plus. . The UK and Japan have shown interest, and one would think Israel and maybe Australia would be watching closely. The scout mission, though, is pretty unique to the Army. A vehicle for that wouldn't have the appeal elsewhere that the medium lift variant would. As stated, it wold be awful hard to get companies to invest their money on another vehicle when if it's perceived that Army might abandon its latest direction. We have already seen examples of major contractors declining to bid on new programs. Given the already ridiculous and unnecessarily long time Army is stretching FVL out, the ultimate result of doing this could very well be that nobody gets anything.
The Airbus Racer would be the competitor to Sikorsky Raider, as a demonstrator is being built. Racer and Tiltrotor have much better fuel burn rate than Sikorsky's X2 technology. After the Army had industry fund the JMR demonstrators, it is totally unacceptable to say forget your investment, we really want something else now. Constantly changing their mind could once again leave the Army getting nothing. The Bell V280 clearly is better than the current Black Hawk, or SB1 Defiant, as a transport aircraft.
First, Army wants to able to load/offload their medium/light helicopters quickly from both sides. With Tilt-Rotor you can do that in a nearly 360º arc around the aircraft, and only slightly less with X2. With the Racer concept, because of the support structure for the props you can only come directly towards it or away in an arc of at best 180º. That brings up the second limitation, you've got to be careful moving near those props until both of them are stopped, which can only happen when on the ground. At least one has to be kept turning with any altitude because the prop[s] are what provides the antitorque force. With X2, the prop can be started/stopped while airborne since it is strictly propulsion, the contra-rotating rotors cancel out the torque. With Tilt-Rotor the issue doesn't arise because the proprotors cancel each other out and also when on the ground the proprotors are up and out of the way.
In civil use, these aren't serious limitation because its no big deal to wait until they're stopped or to approach the doors only from the side/front.
BTW, Bell also has an attack version of the V-280; except for the lack of windows aft of the cockpit, it doesn't look that much different from the transport model. As with all the JMR proposals, to meet the high speed requirement, the main weapons are carried internally.
The low thrust line mounting of the pusher on the SB1 and S97 would also preclude any sort of flared landing or autorotation without incurring damage to the prop, whether it is disengaged or not.
When I look at the pictures of the S97 on the ground, I see that you can do a flared landing. When I was training my instructor drilled it into my head that before touchdown on an auto, skids should be level. I did a lot of full touchdown autos. Do you really want to land tail first, either power on or in an auto? If landing power on with the prop engaged you can always use beta for deceleration.
The short answer here would seem to be that the Defiant pictures reflect a tail wheel, and assuming the Army crashworthy standards remain at least as rigorous as for the UTTAS design, that gear will be substantial and used for the power off landings.
A proof of the structural strength resultant from these standards occurred during development. A power off landing was added to the flight test card on the power plant/subsystem design test ship. Pilots were the Ch Pilot and a sr test pilot who had done a lot of the CH-54 work. The Ch Pilot was in the second seat. Wind was 0-15 kts and the wind died at the flare, meaning they flared at 65, not 80. Flare effectiveness on ROD was essentially zero-all they accomplished was an attitude change. Tail wheel hit the ground at 42 ft/sec. Damage was: 1) broke the tail wheel rim and cut the tire; 2) Scraped the trailing edge of the stabilator. Happened at about 3:30 PM and with a new wheel/tire and the same stabilator straightened via a pair of vice-grips, that ship flew at 0700 the next morning. There is a video of that landing floating around.
Hasten to add that I’m referring to the Defiant design in the preceding paragraph. I’m not at all certain as to the specifics of the present S-97 landing gear design loads criteria.
A proof of the structural strength resultant from these standards occurred during development. A power off landing was added to the flight test card on the power plant/subsystem design test ship. Pilots were the Ch Pilot and a sr test pilot who had done a lot of the CH-54 work. The Ch Pilot was in the second seat. Wind was 0-15 kts and the wind died at the flare, meaning they flared at 65, not 80. Flare effectiveness on ROD was essentially zero-all they accomplished was an attitude change. Tail wheel hit the ground at 42 ft/sec. Damage was: 1) broke the tail wheel rim and cut the tire; 2) Scraped the trailing edge of the stabilator. Happened at about 3:30 PM and with a new wheel/tire and the same stabilator straightened via a pair of vice-grips, that ship flew at 0700 the next morning. There is a video of that landing floating around.
Hasten to add that I’m referring to the Defiant design in the preceding paragraph. I’m not at all certain as to the specifics of the present S-97 landing gear design loads criteria.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 25th Jul 2018 at 03:08. Reason: Add’l information
I agree that that the Army's waffling could prove disastrous. Although Army is getting new/rebuilt medium lift 'copters, they are still basically the same technology and performance as what has been around for 20-30 years, and you have to start moving away from that sometime. The nice thing about CS3 is its widespread applicability.
https://insidedefense.com/insider/ar...black-hawk-buy
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 3rd Aug 2018 at 18:10.
Here is how serious the Army seems about actually going though with FVL CS3
https://insidedefense.com/insider/ar...black-hawk-buy
https://insidedefense.com/insider/ar...black-hawk-buy
Last edited by SplineDrive; 4th Aug 2018 at 19:00.
And it only took 3 years and 4 months from first flight to go 10 knots faster than a 1960’s era Cobra. Meanwhile the V-280 cruised faster on its 300+ mile ferry flight and has already flown 50 knots faster.
Regardless of your apparent dislike for the Winged S and anything they do Sultan, any technology which advances rotary flight whether it be the FBW of the 525 or the X2 / S-97 concept or the V280, it should be applauded and we should respect those who develop and test it.
After a few months of quiet, some more progress with S-97 AC2... finally exceeded 200 knots and demoed some various low speed maneuvers and some decent angle of bank, etc.
Sikorsky Raider Hits 200 knots
Sikorsky Raider Hits 200 knots
"Low acoustics" in high speed mode (skip to 1:34):
High speed flyby from the 8/1 video:
Did they doctor the sound, or what is going on differently in the promo video? I notice a more nose-low attitude, is that just running rotor-only with a freewheeling prop in that clip?
I think the nose down pass is main rotor thrust only, so a helo mode pass with the prop disengaged. There’s a nice side shot where you can see the exhaust gasses... as close as they are to the prop, I can imagine that you’d never want to have the prop truly stopped and stationary. So it looks like it’s spinning, but probably just from windmilling and or torque from a disengaged wet clutch.
Definitely sounds like a hornets with the prop engaged, but it should be pretty quiet with the prop off.
Definitely sounds like a hornets with the prop engaged, but it should be pretty quiet with the prop off.
Well this sounds interesting.
"Low acoustics" in high speed mode (skip to 1:34): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elh0IM7Zp2U&t=94s
High speed flyby from the 8/1 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rH8KEhfKjo
Did they doctor the sound, or what is going on differently in the promo video? I notice a more nose-low attitude, is that just running rotor-only with a freewheeling prop in that clip?
"Low acoustics" in high speed mode (skip to 1:34): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elh0IM7Zp2U&t=94s
High speed flyby from the 8/1 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rH8KEhfKjo
Did they doctor the sound, or what is going on differently in the promo video? I notice a more nose-low attitude, is that just running rotor-only with a freewheeling prop in that clip?
