Sikorsky SB-1 flies for first time
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 632
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 117
Originally Posted by The Sultan
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by SplineDrive
"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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 632
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.
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 20:29.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by The Sultan
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 181
Doing the Math
Interesting that despite the S-97 being promoted as a test bed for it’s 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.
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 14:35.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,115
Originally Posted by CTR
Interesting that despite the S-97 being promoted as a test bed for it’s 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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by etudiant
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.
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.
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 13:30.
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: nj
Posts: 13
[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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 181
Thanks for the correction
Originally Posted by Copter Appreciator00
No biggy, but you mean the Raider-X and the Bell 360 Invictus (hardly an easy-to-remember name).
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 863
Originally Posted by CTR
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 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.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by henra
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.
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.
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 hasn’t reached Vh, so perhaps it’s not well suited to the missions, either.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by henra
is also rather limited in its agility and descent rate compared to the nimble Blackhawk.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 632
Defiant X article.
https://verticalmag.com/news/defiant...ce-black-hawk/
From the article:
While this may just be the article's author cherry picking past articles it confirms that SB has not released any updated information since June 2020. This seems to confirm no progress or flights (?) in six months. So what is wrong. If it was just drag keeping the top speed low they could have flown it to expand the GW/CG and ALT/TEMP envelopes which would gather meaningful data for any proposal and padded the flight hours to look less than the pathetically low 26 hours. I believe the demo was suppose to be at least 100 flight hours with the 280 demo ship good for at least a 200 flight hour campaign.. Giving up in doing anything since June when they needed to make substantial progress to even be a dark horse alternative to the 280 if Bell stumbled (which the Bell team didn't) points to a flight safety issue (or issues) that could not be overcome. Many have speculated high vibration, but in my experience pilot bonus money overcomes that issue. So we are looking at loads so high that catastrophic failure within a limited number of flights could occur or a danger the rotors could collide like what was already demonstrated on the S-97. It will be interesting to find out what metaphorically killed the SB-1 prototype.
https://verticalmag.com/news/defiant...ce-black-hawk/
From the article:
Defiant has logged 1,500 hours in Sikorsky’s systems integration laboratory (SIL), and 135 hours on the ground-based propulsion systems test bed (PSTB). After a rocky start, Defiant roared through a series of test milestones in 2020.
In the two years since its first flight, the demonstration aircraft has performed 31 test flights, accumulating 26 total flight hours, according to the Defiant team.With two-thirds prop torque and engine power, Defiant has achieved 211 knots in straight-and-level flight and 232 knots during a descent.
In the two years since its first flight, the demonstration aircraft has performed 31 test flights, accumulating 26 total flight hours, according to the Defiant team.With two-thirds prop torque and engine power, Defiant has achieved 211 knots in straight-and-level flight and 232 knots during a descent.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by The Sultan
Defiant X article.
https://verticalmag.com/news/defiant...ce-black-hawk/
From the article:
While this may just be the article's author cherry picking past articles it confirms that SB has not released any updated information since June 2020. This seems to confirm no progress or flights (?) in six months. So what is wrong. If it was just drag keeping the top speed low they could have flown it to expand the GW/CG and ALT/TEMP envelopes which would gather meaningful data for any proposal and padded the flight hours to look less than the pathetically low 26 hours. I believe the demo was suppose to be at least 100 flight hours with the 280 demo ship good for at least a 200 flight hour campaign.. Giving up in doing anything since June when they needed to make substantial progress to even be a dark horse alternative to the 280 if Bell stumbled (which the Bell team didn't) points to a flight safety issue (or issues) that could not be overcome. Many have speculated high vibration, but in my experience pilot bonus money overcomes that issue. So we are looking at loads so high that catastrophic failure within a limited number of flights could occur or a danger the rotors could collide like what was already demonstrated on the S-97. It will be interesting to find out what metaphorically killed the SB-1 prototype.
https://verticalmag.com/news/defiant...ce-black-hawk/
From the article:
While this may just be the article's author cherry picking past articles it confirms that SB has not released any updated information since June 2020. This seems to confirm no progress or flights (?) in six months. So what is wrong. If it was just drag keeping the top speed low they could have flown it to expand the GW/CG and ALT/TEMP envelopes which would gather meaningful data for any proposal and padded the flight hours to look less than the pathetically low 26 hours. I believe the demo was suppose to be at least 100 flight hours with the 280 demo ship good for at least a 200 flight hour campaign.. Giving up in doing anything since June when they needed to make substantial progress to even be a dark horse alternative to the 280 if Bell stumbled (which the Bell team didn't) points to a flight safety issue (or issues) that could not be overcome. Many have speculated high vibration, but in my experience pilot bonus money overcomes that issue. So we are looking at loads so high that catastrophic failure within a limited number of flights could occur or a danger the rotors could collide like what was already demonstrated on the S-97. It will be interesting to find out what metaphorically killed the SB-1 prototype.
As for Defiant-X, the RAH-66 exhaust is interesting... that’s a lot of mass flow in some long ducts. The hubs looks radically smaller than on SB>1, though their success in sweet talking the Army down on speed would allow for lower hub loads and smaller structure. Or it’s just fanciful artwork.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,115
Originally Posted by SplineDrive
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 isn’t 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 it’s 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 hasn’t reached Vh, so perhaps it’s not well suited to the missions, either.
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 hasn’t reached Vh, so perhaps it’s not well suited to the missions, either.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 632
Spline noted:
You are correct I falsely attributed the 211 knots speed to the 205 kt June press release. I am sure the customers have taken note of the great advancements made from June to October. Now the question is what did they do from October to December. In one article they stress how great the Defiant is at sling loading and that tilt rotors have minimal sling loading capability. Have I missed a video of Defiant with a sling load? I saw the 280 sling load demo and know the V-22 has a very significant high speed sling capability. In fact the V-22 sling speed capability exceeded a Humvee’s ability to withstand it. If SB is betting on slinging as a winning differentiation between Defiant and the 280 they are definitely on losing path.
Looking back at this thread, there were some flights between summer (20 hrs) and October (23 hrs), and a few more at the December (26 hrs)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 143
So, according to FlightRadar24, V-280 (N280BH) is back in flight status having gone out for flights a couple of times this month. Still nothing on SB>1 (N100FV). Are there even any rumors that Defiant is still flying? Or is she grounded and done, never having reached Vh? If so, that’s a worse miss on cruise speed than Raider. Wonder what they’re doing different for Raider-X?
