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

S97 Raider

Old 31st Jul 2019, 15:49
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by CTR View Post


If you have ever worked in aircraft development and certification you would know nothing is ever simple, rapid, or “clear cut”. Read and learn, all that post simplistic responses on both sides of this discussion.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...06X42741&key=1
Very much on board with all that.
However, it does seem to me that the 525 was cruising to certification when this accident happened. The inquiry has resulted in a material certification delay, rather unexpected had the cause been as obviously pilot error as was suggested above,
etudiant is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2019, 17:06
  #442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 50
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by IFMU View Post
A shroud is not needed for noise control. They have a clutch. I can tell you the X2 main rotor is orders of magnitude quieter than any single rotor helicopter that I've heard. I don't believe this is due to stiffness, just awesome aerodynamics. Regarding vibration, the X2 vibes were lower than a UH60 when it was cruising at 250 kts. We got it there using conventional balancing methods cleaned up with AVC.

Ultralight gyros? How is that relevant?
Thanks for your input. A shroud would be useful for when the prop is engaged. It is difficult to believe Sikorsky would sell any noisy helicopters if all they had to do was change the aerodynamics of the blades.
noneofyourbusiness is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2019, 19:44
  #443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 888
Received 18 Likes on 14 Posts
I’m surprised that IFMU didn’t also suggest that SA might also propose an alternative: a compound version of the RAH-66 Comanche for FARA. Now that might get even my attention!
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2019, 01:05
  #444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Poplar Grove, IL, USA
Posts: 943
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDixson View Post
I’m surprised that IFMU didn’t also suggest that SA might also propose an alternative: a compound version of the RAH-66 Comanche for FARA. Now that might get even my attention!
That doesn't float my boat! I think the Comanche airframe was pretty good as it was.

Adding a shroud is not free. Performance gains from a shroud are sketchy and that is weight where you don't need it.
IFMU is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2019, 01:34
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 888
Received 18 Likes on 14 Posts
Indeed it was, but doesn’t the FARA have a 180 kt cruise number?
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2019, 05:08
  #446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDixson View Post
Indeed it was, but doesn’t the FARA have a 180 kt cruise number?
A compounded RAH-66 would have a wing to help offload the rotor as mu increases... that alone should enable the extra speed for FARA with a usable payload. At 180 knots, it wouldn’t need a pusher. I think Sikorsky’s leadership is pretty clear they want an X-2 in the FARA role, regardless if the complexity makes sense for the requirements or not.
SplineDrive is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2019, 12:29
  #447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 888
Received 18 Likes on 14 Posts
Sorry, wasn’t thinking about a wing, only a pusher. Just dreaming, I think. We did wing on/off maneuverability comparison with the S-67 as a NASA or Army contract ( do not recall the sponsor ).
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 15:27
  #448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDixson View Post
Sorry, wasn’t thinking about a wing, only a pusher. Just dreaming, I think. We did wing on/off maneuverability comparison with the S-67 as a NASA or Army contract ( do not recall the sponsor ).
I’ve got those reports on the S-67 somewhere, I recall they’re for the Army. They’re on one of the .mil data servers.
SplineDrive is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 16:44
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 888
Received 18 Likes on 14 Posts
The point was, we achieved some additional Nz capability with the wing, but less than some of us were expecting My point re the pusher was based on guessing that the FARA requirement might include a fairly respectable maneuver envelope at the 180 kt point, and having a pusher would provide for a lower rotor Ct/sigma at 180, allowing that maneuverability. I should add that I haven't a clue as to the FARA maneuverability requirements.

Last edited by JohnDixson; 4th Aug 2019 at 16:46. Reason: add'l statement.
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2022, 15:50
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,293
Received 12 Likes on 5 Posts
New pictures of the latest mods on S-97. Interesting comment 'way down inside the article' and they made mention of how much 'pointier' the nose is on this prototype.
Its modular effects launchers are extended but can be folded into the fuselage to reduce drag during flight. Those pods can also be loaded with other munitions, including air-launched drones. They also can be removed to clear space for assault troops or casualty evacuation.
If you look at the Army's decision to drop the OH-58D and go with "attack helicopters (AH-64) + drones" as their concept for armed reconnaissance, this is an interesting way to achieve that. You could also just load a few hellfires or other Air to Ground munitions based on the mission. The 3 barrel 20mm is hopefully common to this and the Marine AH-1Z (Viper). Joint logistics and all that ... and note that they got rid of that "tail wheel in the tail" in favor of a more conventional tricycle landing gear configuration.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2022, 05:33
  #451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 680
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Lone,

Holy S! This is the most insane weapons configuration I have ever seen for the following:

1. Flight crew will not be happy with missiles stowed in the cabin and aimed at the back of their heads during missions. Will be a significant distraction. One bullet igniting a motor and game over.
2. In an emergency at low level it will be difficult to jettison the weapons to reduce weight and/or get rid of things that go boom before impacting the ground.
3. Unlike Airwolf this configuration looks impossible to deploy symmetrically or asymmetrically at high speeds due to high drag and having gaping holes in the side of the cabin. Anything loose in the cabin will end up going through the pusher.
4. The pusher is directly aft of the weapons and will be impinged face on by the back blast of the missiles. Good way to get things blown off.





The Sultan is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2022, 12:47
  #452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Empire
Age: 48
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
Lone,

Holy S! This is the most insane weapons configuration I have ever seen for the following:

1. Flight crew will not be happy with missiles stowed in the cabin and aimed at the back of their heads during missions. Will be a significant distraction. One bullet igniting a motor and game over.
2. In an emergency at low level it will be difficult to jettison the weapons to reduce weight and/or get rid of things that go boom before impacting the ground.
3. Unlike Airwolf this configuration looks impossible to deploy symmetrically or asymmetrically at high speeds due to high drag and having gaping holes in the side of the cabin. Anything loose in the cabin will end up going through the pusher.
4. The pusher is directly aft of the weapons and will be impinged face on by the back blast of the missiles. Good way to get things blown off.

It is pretty insane. That said, internal weapons carriage has been around for a while and the number of bullets that have hit Hellfires and not ignited motors or warheads, is significant. The risk is high but the likelihood incredibly low.

On the jettison function, I'm thinking the whole doors might go, rather than an open to jettison munition pods. Just a thought.

On the FOD threat to the pusher, via points 3 and 4, I would think that it is of much less consequence to the pusher than that to a tail rotor. You would only lose speed, rather than a total TR drive/control failure. I know which I would prefer to lose.

All great points you have raised. I just saw the pretty pictures until you raised the questions about certain practicalities. Thank you for making me think.
Doors Off is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2022, 14:01
  #453 (permalink)  
CTR
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
Photo Op

Sikorsky appears to have learned a lesson from Bell after the Defiant fumbles in regards to sticking to promised schedule, and being more open with the press. From the photos it appears their FARA aircraft has progressed well towards first flight. But on close examination of the mast and the weapons carriage, they are obviously wood or plastic mock-ups of real parts. The nose gear reality also looks questionable.

So while I complement Sikorsky on their apparent change in ability to meet schedule and on being more open to the press, I have to wonder how much of the aircraft was just slapped together for a photo op.
CTR is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2022, 16:16
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Am I right in thinking that the nose wheel folds to the left?
exwessex is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2022, 17:15
  #455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 680
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Doors Off View Post

On the FOD threat to the pusher, via points 3 and 4, I would think that it is of much less consequence to the pusher than that to a tail rotor. You would only lose speed, rather than a total TR drive/control failure. I know which I would prefer to lose.

Doors

Impact of weapon exhaust on the tail has always been a concern and looked at very closely. That’s why the weapons are placed on all helicopters I know of where the tail rotor is not directly behind it. On the Raider the pusher is very big and face on to the back blast. If damaged the pusher wouldn’t just stop working, but be significantly out of balance. If the unbalance is large enough you loose the whole tail.

As to one of your other points about internal weapons carriage; name one helicopter where the missiles are mounted inside the occupied space? They are normally mounted externally or in dedicated weapon bays. When working around military helicopters I always paid attention to the “Armed” warnings and avoided standing in front of the missiles (even knowing if one launched it didn’t have to hit you to cause serious damage to the body). Won’t be able to do that in the Raider.
The Sultan is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2022, 15:36
  #456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by exwessex View Post
Am I right in thinking that the nose wheel folds to the left?
You can see the right side door in this picture. https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/202...to2-scaled.jpg
retoocs is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2022, 17:10
  #457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks-that seems more conventional.
exwessex is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2022, 00:00
  #458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 181
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
One other things these two photos confirm: On an X2, all usable internal space has to be forward of the mast, making the vehicle have to be longer than a conventional helo of comparable cabin/bay size.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2022, 02:48
  #459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,293
Received 12 Likes on 5 Posts
Post

Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
Lone,

Holy S! This is the most insane weapons configuration I have ever seen for the following:

1. Flight crew will not be happy with missiles stowed in the cabin and aimed at the back of their heads during missions.
2. In an emergency at low level it will be difficult to jettison the weapons to reduce weight and/or get rid of things that go boom before impacting the ground.
3. Unlike Airwolf this configuration looks impossible to deploy symmetrically or asymmetrically at high speeds due to high drag and having gaping holes in the side of the cabin. Anything loose in the cabin will end up going through the pusher.
4. The pusher is directly aft of the weapons and will be impinged face on by the back blast of the missiles. Good way to get things blown off.
All thoughts that the FARA team had better address.
From a practical point of view, I am certain that number three is the most pressing. Self FOD is a poor idea, so a procedural 'clean up' has to be implemented or what you suggest will for darned sure happen at least once. Humans are humans, right?
As to number 4, I suspect that the weapons rack can include a CAD type thing that pushes the munition down before the rocket engine fires. But I agree with you that this issue must be addressed by the FARA team.

WTF, I agreed with The Sultan? That means that I am buying the next round!
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2022, 03:10
  #460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 680
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Lone wrote:

I suspect that the weapons rack can include a CAD type thing that pushes the munition down before the rocket engine fires.
On the pushing down this is hard successfully for an aircraft that lives nap of earth.

As to storage of the missiles in the cabin I recommend Holland's "Big Week" about the bombing campaign in Europe (one of, if not the best on the subject). It includes numerous examples on how bombers just vanishing after their load explodes and how devastated the other crews were witnessing it. Sure fortified their belief they would not make it to their going home mission count. Not exactly a moral builder.
The Sultan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.