Sikorsky SB-1 flies for first time
Thread Starter
Sikorsky SB-1 flies for first time
They had to get it into the air or risk it being a symbol of a dead end failed concept. How bad is it that even after being two years late it was too dangerous to do an in ground effect hover until now. Bell is planning to suspend funding of the 280 as it has met its goals and obtained all of the data needed to elimate the risk of a production design. At the same time senior LM management must be wondering how much more money to sink into a program that has showed no return.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the gutter..........
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by The Sultan
They had to get it into the air or risk it being a symbol of a dead end failed concept. How bad is it that even after being two years late it was too dangerous to do an in ground effect hover until now. Bell is planning to suspend funding of the 280 as it has met its goals and obtained all of the data needed to elimate the risk of a production design. At the same time senior LM management must be wondering how much more money to sink into a program that has showed no return.
Originally Posted by heli1
No info n duration of first flight ....joy selected video clips and no engagement of the pusher pro pulsed .Looks like still a way to go.
At least they didn't have any of that silly animation that some Sikorsky people seem so fond of.
Sultan, what do you mean by this?
Are you suggesting that Bell is currently in a position to go into the LRIP stage?
Bell is planning to suspend funding of the 280 as it has met its goals and obtained all of the data needed to elimate the risk of a production design.
Now the Competition can Commence!
Now there can finally be a competition between FVL demonstrators. Sultan exaggerated the Defiant schedule delay. First Flight was per DOD contract supposed to occur in the fall of 2017. So the Defiant is approximately 16 months late.
The hurdle for the SB>1 team now is completing all the FVL Key Performance Parameters by the end of this year, as required in the DOD contract. Based on the Sikorsky Raider still not having completed it’s flight test goals, there may not be adequate time for the Defiant. Especially if any more unpredicted problems occur.
Of of course the Army can always change the rules of the competition to give the Defiant a chance to catch up. Not very fair to the people at Bell and suppliers that busted their tails to keep their promises.
I predict a government announcement in the next couple months stating the Defiant will be given additional time to catch up with the Valor. The only question is how much time.
The hurdle for the SB>1 team now is completing all the FVL Key Performance Parameters by the end of this year, as required in the DOD contract. Based on the Sikorsky Raider still not having completed it’s flight test goals, there may not be adequate time for the Defiant. Especially if any more unpredicted problems occur.
Of of course the Army can always change the rules of the competition to give the Defiant a chance to catch up. Not very fair to the people at Bell and suppliers that busted their tails to keep their promises.
I predict a government announcement in the next couple months stating the Defiant will be given additional time to catch up with the Valor. The only question is how much time.
Nice note from Bell Flight congratulating the Defiant team on LinkedIn. Interesting that one of the Bell Flight guys is trashing the Valor and saying Defiant is the way to go. What is up with that?
I think back to the days of the Sikorsky ABC and XV-15 competition back in the 1980's.....each outfit had a lot to win or lose upon how the competition turned out.
Odd that Sultan continues bashing anything/everything Sikorsky but then we are used to his standard of posts.
Odd that Sultan continues bashing anything/everything Sikorsky but then we are used to his standard of posts.
Experience of a Migrant Aerospace Engineer
Sultan has not had the experience of working for multiple competitors in his career. Having worked for the big three plus multiple suppliers I developed an understanding that we are all kindred engineers. I never want anyone to lose a contract. Since it inevitably means someone will lose their job.
Originally Posted by CTR
Sultan has not had the experience of working for multiple competitors in his career. Having worked for the big three plus multiple suppliers I developed an understanding that we are all kindred engineers. I never want anyone to lose a contract. Since it inevitably means someone will lose their job.
Seriously Doubt Post Was From “Bell Flight Guy”
Originally Posted by IFMU
Nice note from Bell Flight congratulating the Defiant team on LinkedIn. Interesting that one of the Bell Flight guys is trashing the Valor and saying Defiant is the way to go. What is up with that?
But it I seriously doubt the post was from a Bell employee. How would you ever validate the individual’s claim? Any real employee could lose their job posting any information about the V-280, regardless if it was good or bad.
My guess is the post is from an old V-22 Osprey naysayer who has problems accepting the aircraft’s success.
Besides, currently how could anyone claim which aircraft is better? The Defiant has barely flown, and the Radier hasn’t completed as much envelope as the Valor. Not much information to base claims of superiority on for either aircraft. Other than maturity of tilt rotor technology and lower risk of development.
CTR - well said. I thought it was classy from Bell to congratulate their competitors. Vertical lift is hard to do - we in the industry "get" that. Bell and Sikorsky/Boeing have taken contrasting views of how to approach the Army's Cap Set 3. Sikorsky built on the "what could have been" ABC, whereas Bell have leveraged their XV-15 / V-22 experience for the V-280. The latter seems to be going well; Defiant has a lot of work to do to catch up, but a few months should mean nothing to the US Army for a platform that will be decades in service. Inevitably, a loss will effect the losing team in terms of jobs and investment. Perhaps FARA opens up the chances of "everyone winning"; V-280 replacing UH-60 and a derivative of the S-92 Raider fulfilling FARA - effectively replacing the loss of the OH-58 and the missed opportunity of the RAH-66.
Originally Posted by CTR
I don’t use LinkedIn since it turned into another Facebook. Which I don’t bother with either.
But it I seriously doubt the post was from a Bell employee. How would you ever validate the individual’s claim? Any real employee could lose their job posting any information about the V-280, regardless if it was good or bad.
My guess is the post is from an old V-22 Osprey naysayer who has problems accepting the aircraft’s success.
Besides, currently how could anyone claim which aircraft is better? The Defiant has barely flown, and the Raider hasn’t completed as much envelope as the Valor. Not much information to base claims of superiority on for either aircraft. Other than maturity of tilt rotor technology and lower risk of development.
But it I seriously doubt the post was from a Bell employee. How would you ever validate the individual’s claim? Any real employee could lose their job posting any information about the V-280, regardless if it was good or bad.
My guess is the post is from an old V-22 Osprey naysayer who has problems accepting the aircraft’s success.
Besides, currently how could anyone claim which aircraft is better? The Defiant has barely flown, and the Raider hasn’t completed as much envelope as the Valor. Not much information to base claims of superiority on for either aircraft. Other than maturity of tilt rotor technology and lower risk of development.
I've never been on facebook but I joined LinkedIn when Sikorsky closed Schweizer and I had to decide where I was going next. I agree a lot of it is non-professional.
