|
Bell/Lockheed and Sikorsky/Boeing Selected for JMR-TD
Sikorsky/Boeing, Bell Win U.S. Army JMR Rotorcraft Demonstrators | AWIN ONLY content from Aviation Week
Sikorsky/Boeing, Bell Win U.S. Army JMR Rotorcraft Demonstrators Aug 12, 2014 Amy Butler and Graham Warwick A Sikorsky/Boeing team has received one of two contracts to build high-speed rotorcraft technology demonstrators for the U.S. Army. Bell Helicopter will build the second flight demonstrator, an industry source says. The Sikorsky/Boeing team will build the 230 kt.-plus SB.1 Defiant rigid coaxial-rotor compound helicopter and Bell the 280-kt. V-280 Valor tiltrotor under the $217 million first phase of the Joint Multi Role technology demonstration (JMR TD). Both rotorcraft are to fly in late 2017. JMR TD is the precursor to the Army’s planned Future Vertical Lift Medium (FVL-M) program to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter from the mid-2030s onward. An attack derivative could later replace the Boeing AH-64 Apache and a marinized version could replace the Navy’s MH-60 Seahawk. The two other competitors for JMR TD Phase 1, small companies AVX Aircraft and Karem Aircraft, are expected to receive Army contracts for some level of continued technology development. AVX was proposing a 230-kt. coaxial-rotor/ducted-fan compound and Karem a variable-speed tiltrotor. Cost-sharing is a major component of JMR and executives at both Bell and Boeing have said industry is investing many times more than the government in the technology demonstration because of the importance of the follow-on FVL-M program. How much of the JMR TD budget the Army has left to spend with AVX and Karem will depend on the cost-sharing agreed to by Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell. Both AVX and Karem say they are in discussions with the Army. The Defiant and Valor will demonstrate high-speed rotorcraft candidates for FVL-M, at or close to full scale, but there is no guarantee the Army ultimately will opt for higher speed when it comes time to replace the UH-60 and AH-64. With the rigid coaxial rotors, pusher propeller and advanced fly-by-wire controls of Sikorsky’s X2 configuration, the Defiant demonstrator will be powered by a pair of Honeywell T55 turboshafts from the Boeing CH-47 Chinook. Bell’s V-280 demonstrator will be powered by a pair of General Electric T67 turboshafts, mounted fixed at the wingtips and driving tilting proprotors. Bell’s team members include Lockheed Martin for the mission system, Spirit AeroSystems for the composite fuselage, GKN for the V-tail and Moog for the fly-by-wire flight controls. Looks as though Boeing was informed on Monday, and immediately put forth a press release today Sikorsky, Boeing Selected to Build Technology Demonstrator for Future Vertical Lift |
The JMR program management probably made up their mind on who would be awarded the flight demonstration contracts many months ago. Basically, the two flight demonstration contracts were Bell's and Sikorsky's to lose. But to be fair AVX and Karem were given a fighting chance to displace Bell or Sikorsky if the results of study work done under the previous contract showed substantial progress. Unfortunately for AVX and Karem, it does not appear they were able to convince the program management that their concepts had enough potential to outweigh the risk of awarding a contract of this scope to a small company.
|
Anyone surprised?
This had about as much to do with competition as VXX and CRH. DoD was NEVER going to move BELL (and their partner L/M) or the B-S team (Boeing-Sik.) out of the competition. Too many jobs and pressure from Congress on the line. Unfortunately for AVX and Karem.
The choice conveniently spreads the risk bet across both major advanced technology paths too (tilt and compound). I would also be willing to bet that AVX will get brought in to the B-S team and Karem to the Bell-L/M team in the near future so nobody actually loses yet.... :suspect: |
Stinger10-
You are definitely a hardened skeptic. Personally, I can see why the JMR program management ultimately decided to give the flight demonstrator contracts to Sikorsky and Bell. The resources these large OEMs have available to commit to this project were a major factor. But you have to appreciate that two very small companies (AVX and Karem) were even given the opportunity and equal funding to compete in the initial study phases of this program by the JMR management. They made the competition as fair as they could. Recall that EC dropped out of the JMR competition because they felt the amount of funding provided was only a small fraction of what it would cost to build the demonstration aircraft, and not worthwhile for them to pursue. |
Defiant Behind Schedule?
News has been dribbling out from Sikorsky and Boeing executive interviews recently that the Defiant is behind contractually scheduled First Flight in 2017. Any news other than speculation when they think they can fly?
|
Nothing outside of speculation, but word on the street (and among suppliers) is they are about 12-18 months behind.
|
Behind Schedule?
Originally Posted by SansAnhedral
(Post 9738897)
Nothing outside of speculation, but word on the street (and among suppliers) is they are about 12-18 months behind.
Or perhaps without a promised follow on contract this was never a competition? |
The schedule is a convenient fiction.
Seems pretty clear the competition is between tilt and coaxial rotor designs. Neither is especially impressive at this point, so a few more years to mature the technologies will not hurt. |
Et
Bell on track to fly. Aircraft already in systems/ground tests(not running). No one knows if Sikorsky can even fix the apparent flaw in the 97 design. Chances are rigid coaxes don't scale up. |
Originally Posted by The Sultan
(Post 9740432)
Et
Bell on track to fly. Aircraft already in systems/ground tests(not running). No one knows if Sikorsky can even fix the apparent flaw in the 97 design. Chances are rigid coaxes don't scale up. That is why I think the schedule is a fiction, the Army needs a competitor more than it needs new vertical lift. |
Sultan says, "No one knows if Sikorsky can even fix the apparent flaw in the 97 design." Hmmm. I heard that unlike tilt rotors, JMR is not supposed to be disposable. Perhaps foolishly, the US Army would like to have aircraft that can make both legs of a typical mission.
On a raid in Yemen, "A US military aircraft assisting in the operation experienced a hard landing at a nearby location, resulting in an additional US injury. That aircraft was unable to fly after the landing [and] was then intentionally destroyed in place," the DoD said. US loses Osprey aircraft in Yemen raid | IHS Jane's 360 |
Come on RJS. Don't use my honest inquiry on the status of the Defiant to try and bait Sultan with Osprey put downs.
No information other than speculation has been presented regarding the Defiants true First Flight date. The S and B team maybe sandbagging to fool Bell into slowly down. But if Bell actually does beat the Sikorsky and Boeing "Dream Team" to First Flight by a year or more, it will be a real David versus Goliath story. Maybe in aerospace size does not matter:-) |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 9740419)
The schedule is a convenient fiction.
Seems pretty clear the competition is between tilt and coaxial rotor designs. Neither is especially impressive at this point, so a few more years to mature the technologies will not hurt.
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 9740419)
The schedule is a convenient fiction.
Seems pretty clear the competition is between tilt and coaxial rotor designs. Neither is especially impressive at this point, so a few more years to mature the technologies will not hurt. The schedule right now is JMR demonstrators first fly in FY 2017 (which won't happen with SB-1), followed by testing and demonstrations in 2018. 2019-2020 they gov't analyses the data; note how it takes the gov't longer to analyze the data than the entire flight program. 2020-2023 then is set aside for the "risk reduction" phase of FVL, which involves an RFP and competition. Note that this will not necessarily be a competition between Bell and Sikorsky, AVX and Karem could bid, after all, JMR was just a "demonstration" of how it was possible to fly advanced concepts. That is supposed to run until 2023, after which there would be an an additional seven to nine year engineering phase leading to entry into service. That scedule is a fantasy. Taking that long means you're behind the technological advantages in all those years. More importantly, any advanced rotorcraft prgram that takes that long is going to have its funding raided by other programs and will be subject to the vagries of multiple presidential administrations and changes in Congress. If they are going that slow, they might as well not bother. Bell says that they can deliver an operational version of the V-280 by 2024. Given their track record, and as long as the gov't comes through with the agreed upon funding on time ( a problem that plagued the V-22 throughout it's development), that seems reasonable, and also is a schedule that would help insure the survival of FVL. Not sure I understand what you mean by not especially impressive. |
Originally Posted by rjsquirrel
(Post 9742621)
Sultan says, "No one knows if Sikorsky can even fix the apparent flaw in the 97 design." Hmmm. I heard that unlike tilt rotors, JMR is not supposed to be disposable. Perhaps foolishly, the US Army would like to have aircraft that can make both legs of a typical mission.
On a raid in Yemen, "A US military aircraft assisting in the operation experienced a hard landing at a nearby location, resulting in an additional US injury. That aircraft was unable to fly after the landing [and] was then intentionally destroyed in place," the DoD said. US loses Osprey aircraft in Yemen raid | IHS Jane's 360 |
Originally Posted by CTR
(Post 9742848)
Come on RJS. Don't use my honest inquiry on the status of the Defiant to try and bait Sultan with Osprey put downs.
No information other than speculation has been presented regarding the Defiants true First Flight date. The S and B team maybe sandbagging to fool Bell into slowly down. But if Bell actually does beat the Sikorsky and Boeing "Dream Team" to First Flight by a year or more, it will be a real David versus Goliath story. Maybe in aerospace size does not matter:-) I don't think the SB-1 is going to be a year behind the V-280. They've simply said they're going to be late (as was the X2 and the S-97) and not meet the schedule (ditto). If they're going to be a year behind, that means that they won't be able to fly until after the demo program is supposed to conclude, they might as well hang it up and the gov't shouldn't put any more taxpayer money into it. |
Originally Posted by The Sultan
(Post 9740432)
Et
Bell on track to fly. Aircraft already in systems/ground tests(not running). No one knows if Sikorsky can even fix the apparent flaw in the 97 design. Chances are rigid coaxes don't scale up. |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 9740471)
You are of course entirely right, tilt rotors have a big head start.
That is why I think the schedule is a fiction, the Army needs a competitor more than it needs new vertical lift. There's still Karem for another Tilt-Rotor to have a competitor. |
Originally Posted by Commando Cody
(Post 9830073)
I don't think the SB-1 is going to be a year behind the V-280. They've simply said they're going to be late (as was the X2 and the S-97) and not meet the schedule (ditto). If they're going to be a year behind, that means that they won't be able to fly until after the demo program is supposed to conclude, they might as well hang it up and the gov't shouldn't put any more taxpayer money into it.
But having worked in aerospace for 40 years I can recognize the pattern of a program that doesn't have control of their ability to perform to a schedule. The SB team waited until they were just 6 months before promised first flight date before announcing to the public they were half a year (or more) behind schedule. Once a program has to slip a schedule to this degree so late in the program, another major slip is more than likely going to occur. Personally as an engineer I wanted the SB>1 to fly when promised. It would have been great to have both aircraft flying in "competition" at the same time. But I am also of the opinion that SB>1 management may have some of the same attitude as big banks before 2008: "We are to big to fail". So not performing to schedule commitments is no big deal. |
Originally Posted by CTR
(Post 9831742)
....having worked in aerospace for 40 years I can recognize the pattern of a program that doesn't have control of their ability to perform to a schedule.
The SB team waited until they were just 6 months before promised first flight date before announcing to the public they were half a year (or more) behind schedule. Once a program has to slip a schedule to this degree so late in the program, another major slip is more than likely going to occur..... P Shades of the 787, rollout first, slippage recognition in stages afterwards.... |
Originally Posted by CTR
(Post 9831742)
Based on the limited information released to the public regarding SB>1 schedule status, it is impossible to guess with any certainty when they will fly next year.
But having worked in aerospace for 40 years I can recognize the pattern of a program that doesn't have control of their ability to perform to a schedule. The SB team waited until they were just 6 months before promised first flight date before announcing to the public they were half a year (or more) behind schedule. Once a program has to slip a schedule to this degree so late in the program, another major slip is more than likely going to occur. Personally as an engineer I wanted the SB>1 to fly when promised. It would have been great to have both aircraft flying in "competition" at the same time. But I am also of the opinion that SB>1 management may have some of the same attitude as big banks before 2008: "We are to big to fail". So not performing to schedule commitments is no big deal. I fear that the problem is deeper than just management, but may lie with the fundamental technology itself. Tying this wit another recent post of mine, the record of ABC/X2 technology has not proved to be that good. The XH-59 underperfomed, not just in vibration levels. The X2 demonstrator was quite late and missed Sikorsky's own schedule(s). Didn't fly that many hours and when it finally achieved the speed it was intended to demonstrate, in the entire program it only spent ~ 20 minutes total time there. What's also interesting is that drawings of operational vehicles prior to X2 flying showed the rotors and mast above the main cabin, allowing the entire area to be used, as with regular helicopters. Since X2, all drawings show the cabin having to be forward of the mast, which may indicate the mast/propulsion system may need to be much larger than originally thought. S-97 was way late to fly, and progress since has been glacial. It took 18 months before it even retracted its gear and most flights seem to have been confined to their won airspace, mostly over the runway or ramp. It's noteworthy that they said earlier this year they would absolutely demonstrate high speed cruise by June, that date being a year later than the dates predicted in 2015, which already had been delayed from the original plan. I haven't seen any announcements that they actually did demonstrated their high speed cruise. Apparently the second demonstrator they built is not going to fly at all Now, SB-1 is following the pattern and is also going to be late. We may be seeing evidence of something more than just management issues. |
I would suggest Bell-Boeing have no bragging rights to on-time delivery of Tilt Rotors.
What matters is how long the Customer is willing to wait and what priority it places on timely delivery of the machines.. |
Keeping Promises and Full Transparency
While I respect and admire the engineering and manufacturing team work working on the SB-1, the top executives at both Sikorsky and Boeing have conducted themselves poorly.
The facts are as follows; Sikorsky/Lockheed and Boeing are the two largest defense contractors in the world. Bell/Textron is ranked about number 11 in the US. The combined man power and financial assets of Sikorsky/Lockheed and Boeing are an order of magnitude greater than Bell/Textron. Bell prior to FVL contract signing requested approximately eight additional months to achieve first flight. The extension was rejected based on Sikorsky and Boeing’s promises that they could meet the contract date of first flight in fall of 2017. While the SB-1 rotor blades have been highlighted as the cause of the program delays, it does not take great effort to realize that based on late design reviews and delivery of major assemblies the entire program has been running a year behind schedule. Bell has been transparent with the V-280 progress throughout the program. The SB-1 has been shrouded in secrecy except for when missing a milestone become obvious to the public. Which aircraft is best still needs to be determined. But as far as keeping promises and transparency, Bell deserves to brag. |
Originally Posted by CTR
(Post 10270081)
While the SB-1 rotor blades have been highlighted as the cause of the program delays, it does not take great effort to realize that based on late design reviews and delivery of major assemblies the entire program has been running a year behind schedule.
|
My experience with automated fiber placement is such that I would not recommend it for a one off aircraft. Rather, design the blade so that it can be automated, but hand make the demonstrator. The 429 construction techniques work well for a conventional helicopter blade, but perhaps aren’t as appropriate for a thick, torsionally stiff tiltrotor blade. In any case, I would never have suggested SB>1 use AFP for a demonstrator blade. I suspect that wasn’t the only delay, but I know the struggles the team would need to overcome to AFP a long blade spar like the article implies. Hope we see more information soon. Will be interesting to see if the flight vehicle matches the renders we’ve been seeing for years.
Originally Posted by SansAnhedral
(Post 10269924)
Apparently SB-1 is now "complete" minus blades! If that truly is the case, I cant understand why the media reporting on this hasn't leaned on Boeing to release some pictures. Bell basically gave the media a build log from the earliest stages, yet the aviation press seems content to show the same CG renderings of Defiant over and over for 3 years. You would think they would at least get Boeing on record explaining why they want to keep it under wraps when their competition is flying almost daily.
The blade fabrication issue seems especially interesting, as I understand that Bell specifically went away from Automated Fiber Placement and toward broadgoods on V280 due to their experience on 429 and 609 fiber placed production blades. Must have been interesting to the Army to be briefed by one competitor that a specific manufacturing technology was less desirable, while the other was struggling for years behind closed doors (supposedly delaying the whole program) trying to make it work. https://www.rotorandwing.com/2018/10...t-main-rotors/ |
Based on literally the only photo Boeing (probably inadvertently) released to date, I think the fuselage shape is what they have been showing in the newer CG videos starting from mid 2017.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0D6b0ZWIAEk4cH.jpg Since SB1 uses AFP, then that likely means all unidirectional tape material. One thing to consider is the damage tolerance capability of a high strain, ultra-stiff rotor blade constructed entirely of high modulus or UHM carbon tape. Even with modern toughened resin systems, it would be very interesting to see failure modes from typical ballistic threats or bird strikes |
HI
At the very start of my Career I worked at Westlands at Yeovil on composites development. We built a prototype tailboom for the scout from all Unidirectional High Modulus Carbon fibre ( there was not any woven product available in the mid 70's). I witnessed the destructive test and I will never forget the load crack when it failed , to call it an explosive failure was an understatement.There were bits of tailboom all over the hangar. If I am not mistaken it exceeded design load by quite a factor . I would suspect that the machine laid tape would be interleaved with woven fabric on any new blade , especially at the root . Neil |
Originally Posted by widgeon
(Post 10271439)
HI
At the very start of my Career I worked at Westlands at Yeovil on composites development. We built a prototype tailboom for the scout from all Unidirectional High Modulus Carbon fibre ( there was not any woven product available in the mid 70's). I witnessed the destructive test and I will never forget the load crack when it failed , to call it an explosive failure was an understatement.There were bits of tailboom all over the hangar. If I am not mistaken it exceeded design load by quite a factor . I would suspect that the machine laid tape would be interleaved with woven fabric on any new blade , especially at the root . Neil There is off-axis-laid tape in the design of the similar but smaller S-97 and X2 blades to create the required torsional stiffness, for example, but it is all still unidirectional tape with no fabric. If you were using AFP to fabricate a SB1 blade, then the addition of broadgood fabric plies would negate the advantages of using an automated tape laying system as you would have to repeatedly stop the process. I imagine the additional bulk of fabric with the weft fibers could also cause overall weight challenges, since the warp direction is inherently softer from being woven and would require more plies to achieve the same stiffness. Based on the patent applications for V280 blades, they appear to be made entirely of fabric material, though the design requirements of a proprotor are entirely different. Hopefully the SB1 blade patent shows up soon so we can see whats going on inside! |
The end of 2018is rapidly approaching. Just 31 calendar days or 15 regular work days. Any rumours on the Defiant’s First Flight status? |
Originally Posted by CTR
(Post 10324551)
The end of 2019 is rapidly approaching. Not so much. :) |
It’s Official
SB announces no flight of SB-1 until sometime in 2019 due to design problems. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...elayed-454362/ |
“This year we fly three airplanes that are super relevant to Future Vertical Lift,” said Chris Van Buiten, Sikorsky’s VP for innovation, “so we congratulate the other guys on flying their one airplane.” |
So, first flight December 45th then. Sikorsky standard work!
|
Not much of a Christmas break
Sadly, a lot of hard working Sikorsky Engineers will not be spending much time with family this Christmas break. Had the Defiant gotten air under the wheels before Christmas they would have enjoyed a well earned rest. |
Originally Posted by IFMU
(Post 10334489)
So, first flight December 45th then. Sikorsky standard work!
|
Today, December 18th marks one year of Bell V280 Flight Testing. Bell just released this video to celebrate this milestone. Link to video below.
|
Originally Posted by CTR
(Post 10338668)
Today, December 18th marks one year of Bell V280 Flight Testing. Bell just released this video to celebrate this milestone. Link to video below.https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=p4w_17lZI0c https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3b5904a76.jpeg SB>1 photo, no hub fairings |
Temporary Main Landings Gear?
Zoom in on the photos main landing gear, it does not look real. |
Temporary Main Landings Gear?
Perhaps only a dolly for towing?
|
Look at the tailwheel housing (dorsal fin??)and the rear pusher prop proximity to the ground, wow. With my untrained eye any nose high attitude on touchdown (running landing, off level landing) and there's gonna be a nasty surprise for the crew up front. But damn, what a sexy looking beast !
|
Originally Posted by Back door
(Post 10344895)
Look at the tailwheel housing (dorsal fin??)and the rear pusher prop proximity to the ground, wow. With my untrained eye any nose high attitude on touchdown (running landing, off level landing) and there's gonna be a nasty surprise for the crew up front. But damn, what a sexy looking beast !
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1c9271721.jpeg The landing gear look real enough to me, but they clearly don't have the complex articulation of a AW609 or S-97... having a wide fuselage makes the gear simpler. There isn't a need for significant cyclic flare, nose up landings in an X-2 type aircraft. Pilots can command a level body descent and deceleration using reverse thrust on the prop... and what a prop on the rear of this thing! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:41. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.