FLRAA speed requirements lowered to 230 knots?
 

Honestly, other than that Sikorsky press/media day, I can’t find an official looking requirement for 230 knots. Everything I can find says 250 knots as a threshold speed and 280 knots as objective. Has the Army given them a lower bar to clear?

Defiant at 211 kts s&l, 232 in a descent, 2/3 prop torque.
https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/sb-1-...131114297.html

Thanks IFMU,

In the article text was my earlier question answer:

”WASHINGTON — The Sikorsky-Boeing developed SB-1 Defiant coaxial demonstratoraircraft hit 232 knots in a descent, and 211 knots in straight and level flight, meeting the U.S. Army’s speed requirements for its future long-range assault aircraft it plans to field by 2030.”

However I believe any new lower speed requirement of 230 Kts would be in level flight, not in descent.

At 2/3 power and 211 kts S&l, I'd project 258 kts max s&l.

Interesting extrapolation using only one data point.

Lets establish a curve based upon Sikorsky's own statements:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...5-kt-in-flight



https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...hits-230-knots


So that's 205 kt @ "less than" 50% power, followed by 211 kt @ 66% power, which would yield a best case blistering 224 kt at MCP (empty)

And 4 months to go 6 knots faster. So basically at this blistering pace of development we can expect MCP in 8 months.

So - you are using a linear relationship between power and speed? Care to explain?

My quick estimate was by the square root of the increase of power. Also how do you know the weight? Any flight test program I've been involved with at Sikorsky has never been anywhere near empty weight.

IIRC you said you were a key player on the X2, which means you know the effect weight has on speed for an X2 rotor.

Edit: my bad, you said you did a bit on X2. So maybe you don't know.

I don’t really think the data from press releases is sufficient to build any sort of credible speed-power polar, even for trash-talking purposes. The time required to advance another 6 knots is a legitimate issue, though. Makes me wonder if the 205 knot speed claim earlier was actually in a descent as well.

I agree on all points here.

You're right. Assuming linear was probably being generous on a fuselage+rotor like SB1.

https://iili.io/3HsAZJ.png

Even the hotrod low drag/FE X2TD fuselage power required slopes up with airspeed on the upper end of the envelope

Most definitely not a key player on X2. However I do have a copy of AGARDograph 197 on my desk at the moment.

Fascinating discussion so far; there's something in the Defense News article that puzzles me: "...232 knots in a descent, and 211 knots in straight and level flight, meeting the U.S. Army’s speed requirements for its future long-range assault aircraft..."

How does "...232 knots in a descent and 211 knots in straight and level flight..." meet FLRAA requirements? Am I missing something"?

It doesn't and to Lockheed's credit, I don't think they have officially claimed it does, but some journalists have gotten "excited" about the 232 knot value.

Defiant Total Flight Hours?
 

Has Lockheed or Boeing recently advertised how many total flight hours the Defiant has accumulated to date?

i read 23 hours in one of this week’s articles.

23 Flight Hours in17 Months?
 

Thank you SplineDrive for the information. But is that information from a recent press release? It’s been 17 months since first flight.

Actually, in three days it'll have been 19 months. On August 28 SansAnhedral posted a quote from Graham Warwick (a reliable source) indicating that SB>1 had flown 20 hours. So given the nearly two months that have elapsed since then, three more hours would be in line with its average flight rate (actually it's somewhat better than their average rate) since first flight.

From above article:

Again the PR department falls down, in what world is 205 kts close to 230? Time to rename the Defiant BS-1. Also, in one of the articles it’s claimed they fly on average once a week, so 16 flights since the June 205 knot flight if they are to be believed.

With the four months between press releases I have pondered what serious problems are crippling the program. When one of the pilots commented that the June-ish test card called for a 30 degree bank, but they did 45 degrees instead I suspected flight control issues (no competent flight test pilot would intentionally miss the targeted bank angle that much). Four months is about right for a flight control software mod so that accounts for one of the claimed sixteen flights. We know the S-97 top speed has been reduced to the 180 to 200 kt range by excessive drag and brutal vibration. It is a safe bet one or both of these are issues they are having to address as they are minimizing the FLRAA requirements to avoid outright cancellation.

Any one want to give odds on another press release this year?

Actually Sultan, maybe we should be giving props to the PR department rather than denigrating them. Their job is to promote the company's interests and put the best spin on what's going on. Their job is to keep accomplishments in front of the audiences' and customers' eyes. They really haven't been given a lot to work with here and so they're doing the best they can with what they have.

Put me down for another press release in mid-December highlighting the hundreds of ground turn hours accumulated on the test beds and "thousands" of hours of simulations in various integration labs as totally validating the design. Probably a mention of a 220 knot level flight achievement, too. Unless of course, the Army lowers the FLRAA requirements further, in which case we'll hear breathless claims of meeting all requirements and being the next step in Army aviation.