Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Sikorsky SB-1 flies for first time

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

Sikorsky SB-1 flies for first time

Old 19th Oct 2020, 20:47
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 615
Spline,

Current progress would indicate 214 knots by end of the year. As you are aware they have gotten all of the easy knots. Bell is probably in a similar position on the V-280 except their baseline is starting at 300 Kts+.which they reached a long time ago.
The Sultan is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2020, 05:37
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
Spline,

Current progress would indicate 214 knots by end of the year. As you are aware they have gotten all of the easy knots. Bell is probably in a similar position on the V-280 except their baseline is starting at 300 Kts+.which they reached a long time ago.
One minor note, unless I'm misunderstanding your context: Bell's promise was 280 knots (hence the name of the craft). They made that some time ago, and have since gone well beyond to over 300 knots.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2020, 15:48
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by SplineDrive View Post
"A flight to achieve that speed goal is imminent" - Defiant Team 8/27/2020

Which speed goal? The bare-minimum Army requirement of 230 knots? Or the current speed goal of "closer to 250 knots" (so I guess 241 knots qualifies)? Or SB>1's actual design speed?
I guess ďimminentĒ is longer than three months.
SplineDrive is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2020, 20:33
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 615
https://verticalmag.com/news/defiant...lestones-2020/

More gaslighting from the Sikorsky-Boeing PR team. Apparently their definition of roaring through milestones are:

1. Flying only 26 hours in 20 months at the most benign gross weight/cg.
2. Achieving a pathetic top speed in level flight of 211 knots against an original target of near 250 knots (later reduced to 230 knots which they still could not achieve).
3. Not flying any gross weight/altitude/range expansion flights.

They also state the team is putting "the final touches on an official pitch to replace the U.S. Army’s long-serving UH-60 Black Hawks." So they admit they have completed all they can do with the SB-1, even though they were given a govt funded one year extension to the FLRAA demo program deadline to try to make it appear they were a viable alternative to the 300Kt++ Bell V-280, It appears their plan is to lobby the Army to water down the FLRAA speed/range requirements so much that even the SB-1 could meet them. If that fails I expect them to no bid the program and try to get FLRAA cancelled because there are not two competing for the development contract.


Last edited by The Sultan; 31st Dec 2020 at 21:29.
The Sultan is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2021, 14:48
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
https://verticalmag.com/news/defiant...lestones-2020/

More gaslighting from the Sikorsky-Boeing PR team. Apparently their definition of roaring through milestones are:

1. Flying only 26 hours in 20 months at the most benign gross weight/cg.
2. Achieving a pathetic top speed in level flight of 211 knots against an original target of near 250 knots (later reduced to 230 knots which they still could not achieve).
3. Not flying any gross weight/altitude/range expansion flights.

They also state the team is putting "the final touches on an official pitch to replace the U.S. Army’s long-serving UH-60 Black Hawks." So they admit they have completed all they can do with the SB-1, even though they were given a govt funded one year extension to the FLRAA demo program deadline to try to make it appear they were a viable alternative to the 300Kt++ Bell V-280, It appears their plan is to lobby the Army to water down the FLRAA speed/range requirements so much that even the SB-1 could meet them. If that fails I expect them to no bid the program and try to get FLRAA cancelled because there are not two competing for the development contract.
Well, I was too optimistic when it came to predictions of last quarter progress for SB>1. I’m sure they’ll declare success if they ever reach 230 knots, but success should be measured against the engineering performance targets, which were well in excess of that. If Defiant can’t reach their intended design Vh by the next contract phase award in March, why should they get money to continue? Two years to not reach Vh is more than enough time. Raider hasn’t made Vh in 5.5 years of flying.
SplineDrive is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2021, 15:24
  #226 (permalink)  
CTR
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 166
Doing the Math

Interesting that despite the S-97 being promoted as a test bed for itís bigger brother the SB>1, it has only accumulated 93 flight hours. So the two X2 technology aircraft combined have only 119 flight hours, compared to over 200 hours on the Bell V-280.

I fear that politics and the changing world post COVID may make a bigger difference in the future of FVL than the obvious technical maturity benefits of the V-280.

Let us all hope that sensibility and trust in science prevails in 2021.


Last edited by CTR; 1st Jan 2021 at 15:35.
CTR is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2021, 16:23
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 413
Rather worryingly it appears that sensibility and trust in science took a precipitous nosedive in 2020. I'm certainly with you in your hope but extremely worried about what will actually happen.
Robbo Jock is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2021, 18:34
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by CTR View Post
Interesting that despite the S-97 being promoted as a test bed for itís bigger brother the SB>1, it has only accumulated 93 flight hours. So the two X2 technology aircraft combined have only 119 flight hours, compared to over 200 hours on the Bell V-280.

I fear that politics and the changing world post COVID may make a bigger difference in the future of FVL than the obvious technical maturity benefits of the V-280.

Let us all hope that sensibility and trust in science prevails in 2021.
Fact is that reality is what Washington decides it is.
I just see two very expensive, very large bits of complex gear, neither of which appears fit for the purpose. They are too big to do recon and too fragile to do combat.
The idea of helicopters massed to defeat tank armies is dead as a dodo, as was demonstrated in the recent Armenia/Azerbaijan war.
Aging a dumb idea does not make it smarter.
etudiant is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2021, 20:12
  #229 (permalink)  
CTR
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
Fact is that reality is what Washington decides it is.
I just see two very expensive, very large bits of complex gear, neither of which appears fit for the purpose. They are too big to do recon and too fragile to do combat.
The idea of helicopters massed to defeat tank armies is dead as a dodo, as was demonstrated in the recent Armenia/Azerbaijan war.
Aging a dumb idea does not make it smarter.
Both the SB>1 and the V-280 primary mission is troop transport. As long as soldiers need to get in and out of battle, this mission is not going away.

The Raider and Valor (correction Raider-X and Invictus) are being designed for recon and attack. I concur, that mission may soon be made obsolete by unmanned technology.

Last edited by CTR; 2nd Jan 2021 at 14:30.
CTR is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2021, 03:12
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: nj
Posts: 10
[QUOTE=CTR;10958698]Both the SB>1 and the V-280 primary mission is troop transport. As long as soldiers need to get in and out of battle, this mission is not going away.

The Raider and Valor are being designed for recon and attack. I concur, that mission may soon be made obsolete by unmanned technology.

No biggy, but you mean the Raider-X and the Bell 360 Invictus (hardly an easy-to-remember name)
I can't post URLs but like how the V-280 Valor transport flew autonomously in December 2019, the B360 will be built to accommodate pilot-less flight.
Copter Appreciator00 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2021, 14:27
  #231 (permalink)  
CTR
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 166
Thanks for the correction

Originally Posted by Copter Appreciator00 View Post
No biggy, but you mean the Raider-X and the Bell 360 Invictus (hardly an easy-to-remember name).
Thanks for the correction. Should not reply to post after a long New Yearís eve. :-)
CTR is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2021, 09:08
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 827
Originally Posted by CTR View Post
Both the SB>1 and the V-280 primary mission is troop transport. As long as soldiers need to get in and out of battle, this mission is not going away.
The mission isn't going away but the question remains if they are not too expensive/complex, too big and too fragile for the mission.
The big plus of the Blackhawk for this mission is that it is extremely rugged, rather nimble and small and not excessively complex and expensive. Almost the opposite of the new vertical lift high speed platforms. The most dangerous phase for the helicopter in combat has historically been the landing/de- boarding phase. And that is the phase where especially the valor is a huuuuge and beautiful target with lots of critical parts widely spread and is also rather limited in its agility and descent rate compared to the nimble Blackhawk. I'm not really convinced that they are not going to cancel the current bid. For certain special missions the new platforms surely offer very interesting possibilities but I have a hard time to figure them as real replacement for the rugged 'bread and butter' combat mule that is the Blackhwak.
henra is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2021, 13:01
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by henra View Post
The mission isn't going away but the question remains if they are not too expensive/complex, too big and too fragile for the mission.
The big plus of the Blackhawk for this mission is that it is extremely rugged, rather nimble and small and not excessively complex and expensive. Almost the opposite of the new vertical lift high speed platforms. The most dangerous phase for the helicopter in combat has historically been the landing/de- boarding phase. And that is the phase where especially the valor is a huuuuge and beautiful target with lots of critical parts widely spread and is also rather limited in its agility and descent rate compared to the nimble Blackhawk. I'm not really convinced that they are not going to cancel the current bid. For certain special missions the new platforms surely offer very interesting possibilities but I have a hard time to figure them as real replacement for the rugged 'bread and butter' combat mule that is the Blackhwak.
Both FLRAA competitors have agility requirements at the LZ similar to the UH-60 platform and the V-280 has demonstrated that capability. It also has the ability to rapidly drop from cruise to LZ and back to cruise again. Conversion isnít a long, involved process and can be done in as little as 12 seconds on other tilt rotor platforms. The V-280 is a larger target than a H-60, but itís exposure time near the LZ is less than an H-60 and widely separating critical components is an important aspect of system design.

Fact is, the H-60 cannot do the missions the Army has envisioned for FLRAA and a tilt rotor can. Of course, this is the SB>1 thread, so we should mention that vehicle, which in nearly two years of flying hasnít reached Vh, so perhaps itís not well suited to the missions, either.
SplineDrive is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2021, 15:57
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by henra View Post
is also rather limited in its agility and descent rate compared to the nimble Blackhawk.
Sorry, but this has been shown in flight testing to be demonstrably false.

Of course, Sikorsky also claims the same thing with Defiant, but over 5+ years of trickled flight testing neither it nor S-97 have demonstrated anything approaching even what the V-280 has done in YouTube videos or in front of public audiences.
SansAnhedral is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.