An anonymous post but I recognize it as being written by a good friend of mine.

SAD
 

Lone Wolf 50 totally agree definitely there is a need for a new Hawk transmission with the 901 and the ITEP. Common sense but it’s the Army. Just like inlet barrier filters. Still the Army hasn’t come to their senses to install IBFs. AeroMetals design and fielded IBFs to the S70 FireHawks are awesome and viable. Yet the Army still flies without filters without addressing the fleet engine issues deployed.
As for X2 Y it was very doable within 10 years after of X2 now here we are fingers crossed for the future and common sense from corporate leadership and then the Army. Just like the AH66 Comanche what a phenomenal aircraft and it went to the grave yard because of a paper chase and Army requirements ever changing with every Program Manager. Again another SAD history of something viable and doable.

Post 6
 

Post 6

Post 7
 

Post 7

Post 8
 

Post 8

Fingers Crossed……
 

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....37218c2c0.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ccbc198a8.jpeg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....00b8ec77f.jpeg

[/size]

S-97 Raider was certainly underpowered for a "true X2". Never came close to hitting the optimistic speed targets (nor did Defiant) and in the end, when it flew without the propellor (another story), it could cruise at 180+ knots... which is great for a helicopter it's size. So you're right... not enough power installed to really make the propellor a good addition relative to the weight/cost/complexity it adds. The airframe was undersized but really wasn't tunable away from 4P, just the nature of the geometry and open cabin. It could have been a little better but when you contract someone else to do your work, you get what you get :-/

The X2D was a cool program but don't over-romanticize it. The blade construction was poor, the rotor head was extremely heavy with short life, the gearbox was troublesome, the rotor required retracking all the time, and ended up having to treat multiple frequencies of vibrations with a large AVCS scheme for that sized aircraft, etc. A "S-76 sized" Y model would have been much larger than 14,000 lb... the weight parametrics of X2 aircraft were all underpredicted. Rotor weight scales faster than the aircraft does, the impact of yaw control and MR loads on MRGB sizing was underpredicted, yaw control was insufficient, oscillatory loads were wildly underpredicted, AVCS sizing was underpredicted, impact of AVCS flight criticality wasn't appreciated, and the list goes on. By the time those are addressed, part lives pumped up to acceptable levels, and ride quality made commercially acceptable, weight would have ballooned. Then you add on Part 29 requirements like damage tolerance and bird strike, etc. Strikes at 250 knots are far heavier to design for than 150 knots... if the FAA doesn't make you use an airplane-level 4 lb bird if you want to cruise at higher altitudes. I think that S-76 sized "Y" model would have been a ~20,000 lb aircraft if it was to be FAA certified and if it wasn't certifiable and marketable, then why build it?

The physics are the physics, though. An edgewise flow, stiff out of plane rigid rotor is a bad idea. Draggy, heavy, huge loads and horrific vibrations unless you pump the blade count up so high the blades are too slender to keep separated for a coaxial. The integrated propellor propulsor is better than slapping jets on the side like XH-59A but results in low ground clearance, a high power clutch, and high mass in the wrong spot for a coaxial helicopter. There is a 1980's memo floating around SAC listing out the problems of the ABC vs what the claims and goals of the program were. The X2 configuration addressed some of those, but not all, and the unaddressed issues bit the X2 aircraft as well.

X2 wasn't the future of Sikorsky, it was a bold bet on a dubious idea. Right now, X2 Technology is headed where it belongs: in a museum.

Arggh, don't get me started, but such is life.
Perhaps that is its ultimate fate.

These will never be. They were nice marketing concepts that predate the X2 demonstrator. Since these and similar were published, it's become apparent that in the real world the mast and transmission of an X2 take up so much internal space that any cabin or cargo space has to be forward of the mast, as can be seen in every ABC/X2 that has flown, and Raider-X and Defiant-X

Maybe Sikorsky was planning on bringing the Huey "hellhole" back into style! Lol

heh heh

Defiant to a Museum?
 

https://www.twz.com/air/sb1-defiant-...st-in-a-museum

WTF! Why would they put this miserable failure in a museum?

Because we have to preserve our successes and our failures... Defiant grabs your shoulders, shakes violently, and stands tall as a huge reminder of what not to do.

Because Kars for Kids wouldn’t take it, and Lockheed needed the tax deduction. 😝

I'd bet money that the Bell/BB/BA/Whatever AW609 will eventually (perhaps soon) end up in a similar museum. What is always the answer to the eternal question about when the 609 will be certified? "By next Spring for sure...certainly by Summer. Maybe Fall."

A new video...

Not sure if you have kept up with current events, but FARA was canceled.
Who is going to buy this?

The current media push around X2 is 100% tied to NATO’s NGRC effort, which Sikorsky is still a player for alongside Airbus and Leonardo.

I'm sure Europe will be eager to buy a new US helicopter these days. I'd hate to be a lobbyist for LM right now.

No kidding. Europe already has indigenous "normal" helicopters, compounded helicopters, and tiltrotors (with an assist from Bell)... so where does the X2 fit in given the transatlantic tension and the lack of program wins for the X2 concept? Even an Augusta/Bell tiltrotor based on FLRAA is probably a political stretch, even if it made the most sense (not saying it does).