S97 Raider
Actually I think Sultan is suffering from a case of Intellectual Penis Envy
You know how those with the biggest gun are compensating for private part issues. Well anyone driving by south Arlington on I-20 can see the structure Nick had built for his ego for an significant cost to Bell and the taxpayers. Some day it will be torn down never being used. Nick does know how to spend money. When at Bell these expenditures had near zero return.
The Sultan
from riff-raff
Riff this is a very wise move especially after the CH-53K transmission embarrassment. Not sure what the issue would be to keep them from doing moderate 60-100 knots flights, after being released for flight, while isolating problems before pushing to the higher load maneuvers.
The Sultan
A week article today reported S-97 program manager statement that flight testing is being halted again for another 9 to 12 weeks. Reason is to wait for more hours to be accumulated on the gearbox test stand units.
The Sultan
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riff this is a very wise move especially after the CH-53K transmission embarrassment.
I would not necessarily consider the development problems with the 53K MRGB an embarrassment. It is a (12 way) torque split configuration designed for very high power (>16,000hp) and low specific weight (over 500lbs less than planetary config). Torque split designs are notoriously difficult to get right because the multiple load paths present a very complex analysis case. The 53K MRGB relies on torsionally compliant quill shafts and precision assembly to provide the required balance of torque distribution among 12 pinions driving the bull gear. Anyone that has experience working with this type of gearbox would agree that getting the torque balance correct requires a detailed analysis effort plus several cycles of bench test/design modification.
The only reason Sikorsky might have to be embarrassed is if they failed to fully appreciate the level of development effort this type of gearbox has historically been shown to require. I also would have expected NAVAIR to foresee these kinds of development issues. NAVAIR has some very competent people and have lots of experience in this field.
The 53K MRGB ... It is a (12 way) torque split configuration designed for very high power (>16,000hp) and low specific weight (over 500lbs less than planetary config). Torque split designs are notoriously difficult to get right because the multiple load paths present a very complex analysis case. The 53K MRGB relies on torsionally compliant quill shafts and precision assembly to provide the required balance of torque distribution among 12 pinions driving the bull gear. Anyone that has experience working with this type of gearbox would agree that getting the torque balance correct requires a detailed analysis effort plus several cycles of bench test/design modification.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not consider the split torque design to present an "order of magnitude" greater difficulty than that of the CH-53E. However, simply growing the existing CH-53E configuration to accomodate a 30% increase in power presented some serious design challenges, even without weight concerns. The 53E MRGB uses a spiral bevel 1st stage and planetary 2nd/3rd stages. Early in the 53K program NAVAIR asked Sikorsky to perform an MRGB trade study comparing an improved planetary design to a split torque design. NAVAIR wanted to determine if the advantages of the split torque configuration were enough to justify the greater development risk. Among the advantages provided by the split torque configuration were lower weight, more space for increasing the main rotor shaft diameter, and a more efficient main housing structure.
If you are interested in reading more about the 53K MRGB design trade study work done by Sikorsky, there is an excellent AHS technical paper from 2008.
If you are interested in reading more about the 53K MRGB design trade study work done by Sikorsky, there is an excellent AHS technical paper from 2008.
I would not consider the split torque design to present an "order of magnitude" greater difficulty than that of the CH-53E. However, simply growing the existing CH-53E configuration to accomodate a 30% increase in power presented some serious design challenges, even without weight concerns. The 53E MRGB uses a spiral bevel 1st stage and planetary 2nd/3rd stages. Early in the 53K program NAVAIR asked Sikorsky to perform an MRGB trade study comparing an improved planetary design to a split torque design. NAVAIR wanted to determine if the advantages of the split torque configuration were enough to justify the greater development risk. Among the advantages provided by the split torque configuration were lower weight, more space for increasing the main rotor shaft diameter, and a more efficient main housing structure.
If you are interested in reading more about the 53K MRGB design trade study work done by Sikorsky, there is an excellent AHS technical paper from 2008.
If you are interested in reading more about the 53K MRGB design trade study work done by Sikorsky, there is an excellent AHS technical paper from 2008.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50- Just a couple final comments regarding the challenge of designing a split torque gearbox.
First, back in 2003 under the AATD RDS-21 program, Sikorsky demonstrated they could get load sharing within 1% in a split torque gear drive using their torsionally compliant quill shaft concept (somewhat similar to what is used at a larger scale in the 53K MRGB). I can tell you from experience that getting load sharing within 1% in any split torque gear drive is pretty impressive. Apparently they were not able to achieve anywhere close to the same result with the 53K MRGB in testing, since they are currently going thru a major redesign. In fact, I would speculate the bull pinion load sharing variation they saw in bench testing of the 53K MRGB was much more than "an order of magnitude" greater than 1%. In my opinion, even a 10% variation in load sharing between the 12 bull pinions would be quite acceptable.
Second, in case you don't get your hands on a copy of the AHS paper I linked, here's the most interesting quote:
"Summary and Conclusion A trade study on two different design configurations of the CH-S3K main gearbox, a new split torque MGB vs. an improved planetary MGB, was performed. The three focusing parameters of the trade study include performance, cost and risk. The advantage and disadvantages of both design configurations were thoroughly studied. The geartrain systems, mounting bearings, and supporting housings of the two different MGB‘s were designed and analyzed for detailed weight calculations. Results of the trade study are summarized below.
1.The split torque MGB design has a significant weight saving (more than 500 lbs) over the improved planetary.
2. The Split torque MGB can save millions of dollars per aircraft in total cost which includes development and production cost.
3. The Split torque design bears slightly higher risk than the improved planetary design due to Sikorsky’s lack of production experience in split-torque gearboxes. But the risk-reduction test of the quill shaft lowered the risk level of the split-torque MGB to the same level as that of the improved planetary.
In conclusion, the split torque main gearbox is a better design and was chosen for the new CH-53K."
First, back in 2003 under the AATD RDS-21 program, Sikorsky demonstrated they could get load sharing within 1% in a split torque gear drive using their torsionally compliant quill shaft concept (somewhat similar to what is used at a larger scale in the 53K MRGB). I can tell you from experience that getting load sharing within 1% in any split torque gear drive is pretty impressive. Apparently they were not able to achieve anywhere close to the same result with the 53K MRGB in testing, since they are currently going thru a major redesign. In fact, I would speculate the bull pinion load sharing variation they saw in bench testing of the 53K MRGB was much more than "an order of magnitude" greater than 1%. In my opinion, even a 10% variation in load sharing between the 12 bull pinions would be quite acceptable.
Second, in case you don't get your hands on a copy of the AHS paper I linked, here's the most interesting quote:
"Summary and Conclusion A trade study on two different design configurations of the CH-S3K main gearbox, a new split torque MGB vs. an improved planetary MGB, was performed. The three focusing parameters of the trade study include performance, cost and risk. The advantage and disadvantages of both design configurations were thoroughly studied. The geartrain systems, mounting bearings, and supporting housings of the two different MGB‘s were designed and analyzed for detailed weight calculations. Results of the trade study are summarized below.
1.The split torque MGB design has a significant weight saving (more than 500 lbs) over the improved planetary.
2. The Split torque MGB can save millions of dollars per aircraft in total cost which includes development and production cost.
3. The Split torque design bears slightly higher risk than the improved planetary design due to Sikorsky’s lack of production experience in split-torque gearboxes. But the risk-reduction test of the quill shaft lowered the risk level of the split-torque MGB to the same level as that of the improved planetary.
In conclusion, the split torque main gearbox is a better design and was chosen for the new CH-53K."
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50- here's a later AHS paper on the same subject if you want to spend $30.
https://vtol.org/store/product/load-...arbox-2474.cfm
https://vtol.org/store/product/load-...arbox-2474.cfm
AUSA Interview
AUSA 2015: Sikorsky?s big plans for Raider (video) - News - Shephard
Interview with Sikorsky at AUSA on the S-97. Not very impressive. The one guy did not get the script, he went beyond the vague press release and stated they got to only 20 knots in forward flights instead of putting no number on it so people could dream of higher speeds.
The other amazing thing stated was the SB-1 would benefit from the S-97 testing. Short of the 97 already uncovering a major design flaw (which is plausible based on the stagnation of the test effort) the SB-1 design is fixed by now. One year ago, at the original schedule, the 97 may have had an impact, but not now.
The Sultan
Interview with Sikorsky at AUSA on the S-97. Not very impressive. The one guy did not get the script, he went beyond the vague press release and stated they got to only 20 knots in forward flights instead of putting no number on it so people could dream of higher speeds.
The other amazing thing stated was the SB-1 would benefit from the S-97 testing. Short of the 97 already uncovering a major design flaw (which is plausible based on the stagnation of the test effort) the SB-1 design is fixed by now. One year ago, at the original schedule, the 97 may have had an impact, but not now.
The Sultan
Did the VS300 and R4 have any impact? Of course not, they were Sikorsky machines, right? I thought it was a great interview and video, thanks for the link!
Building/Structure
You are correct, Sultan, you used the term " structure ".
My question remains as posed. Just imagine I had used " structure " instead of " building ".
John
My question remains as posed. Just imagine I had used " structure " instead of " building ".
John
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2014/04/07/a-look-inside-bell-helicopters-new-corporate.html
Perhaps this is what sultan speaks of. Looks ok to me.
Perhaps this is what sultan speaks of. Looks ok to me.
