Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: RevDisk on November 11, 2010, 01:04:54 PM
-
Sikorsky recently announced the S-97 "X2 Raider" in response to a request for information relating to Army’s Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) program.
Two configurations were purposed. For the armed reconnaissance mission, the X2 Raider helicopter will have a two-pilot cockpit, with the rest of the space reserved for armament and auxiliary fuel. (aka the Ricky Bobby Option) In an assault configuration, that space is used to hold six troops. Both configurations allow increased speed, increased maneuverability, greater endurance, and the ability to operate at high altitudes over conventional helicopters. And it's quite quiet as well.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frevdisk.net%2Finet%2FX2Raider.jpg&hash=fceac4ddd8cfd075c6cbca2f79cc3b0b8e5e8ab2)
-
Went with the Kamov approach for overall compactness, I see.
-
Went with the Kamov approach for overall compactness, I see.
Not for compactness. Coaxial to defeat dissymmetry of lift. We have a pusher prop, active vibration control, and a bunch of other "interesting" stuff under the hood. So somewhat similar looks, very different internals. The whole aircraft exterior is designed around removing drag. This thing is build for speed.
-
Well, now you know what to send up here for Christmas...
-
http://www.sikorsky.com/StaticFiles/Sikorsky/Assets/video/LHT_VNR_102010_lowres.wmv
-
Pshaw.
Doesn't have anything on Airwolf. =D
-
I don't know a lot about helos. What are the reasons / benefits of this tail rotor design? Is it basically a speed enhancement?
-
I don't know a lot about helos. What are the reasons / benefits of this tail rotor design? Is it basically a speed enhancement?
The standard tail rotor is designed to counteract the torque of the main rotor. I'd imagine the counter rotating main rotors on this design elimate that need, so the pusher tail rotor allows it extra forward propulsion....
I
feel
the
need
for
speed!
-
I don't know a lot about helos. What are the reasons / benefits of this tail rotor design? Is it basically a speed enhancement?
The design is that there is no tail rotor. =D
Jamis is correct. No need for counter-torque with a coaxial, so we toss on the prop for speed. However, the design also allows the airframe to pull maneuvers that are physically not possible to accomplish in a conventional setup. In other words, we could fly circles around Airwolf.
I do not want to be within a hundred miles of 160th when they get their hands on this... It's fast, maneuverable in ways unimaginable to any sane pilot, and has plenty of interesting physics characteristics that I'm sure insane pilots will love exploring.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loop.aero%2FImages%2FUploads%2FSikorsky-S-97-450.jpg&hash=cb3275b3dff4e3454398abc4d129f90a2a410205)
-
The design is that there is no tail rotor. =D
Jamis is correct. No need for counter-torque with a coaxial, so we toss on the prop for speed. However, the design also allows the airframe to pull maneuvers that are physically not possible to accomplish in a conventional setup. In other words, we could fly circles around Airwolf.
I do not want to be within a hundred miles of 160th when they get their hands on this... It's fast, maneuverable in ways unimaginable to any sane pilot, and has plenty of interesting physics characteristics that I'm sure insane pilots will love exploring.
Yeah... but airwolf can go mach 2.. and this go mach 2? :) Also, Airwolf can stuff shrike and hellfire missiles plus 6" copperhead guided artillery shells in what looks like a 2" tube.. can this do that too? [ar15]
-
Oh, I did not earlier see the pusher prop in the rear. I thought they went with the co-axial rotors (like Kamov) just to eliminate the tail rotor. Hmm, this should have some speed then with the auxiliary prop.
-
Ok... his and hers, one for me and one for Spoon... ;)
-
The design is that there is no tail rotor. =D
Jamis is correct. No need for counter-torque with a coaxial, so we toss on the prop for speed. However, the design also allows the airframe to pull maneuvers that are physically not possible to accomplish in a conventional setup. In other words, we could fly circles around Airwolf.
Interesting. Is it constant or variable? My limited knowledge would lead me to believe that the design for increased speed would somewhat negatively affect the maneuverability that you'd have with a standard tail rotor. From what you said though, that's not only not the case, but you're increasing maneuverability. You're making my brain hurt. :P :laugh:
-
Not for compactness. Coaxial to defeat dissymmetry of lift. We have a pusher prop, active vibration control, and a bunch of other "interesting" stuff under the hood. So somewhat similar looks, very different internals. The whole aircraft exterior is designed around removing drag. This thing is build for speed.
OTS engines?
From whom?
-
The design is that there is no tail rotor. =D
Jamis is correct. No need for counter-torque with a coaxial, so we toss on the prop for speed. However, the design also allows the airframe to pull maneuvers that are physically not possible to accomplish in a conventional setup. In other words, we could fly circles around Airwolf.
I do not want to be within a hundred miles of 160th when they get their hands on this... It's fast, maneuverable in ways unimaginable to any sane pilot, and has plenty of interesting physics characteristics that I'm sure insane pilots will love exploring.
So is your plan to have Skippy from MHI be your test pilot? And does it have room for the setup he's gonna need to play heavy metal?
-
In other words, we could fly circles around Airwolf.
Airwolf could go from zero to Mach one in ten seconds from sea level to 40,000ft. [tinfoil]
Now, the actual helicopter was a Bell 222 which tops out about 165 MPH. It did have twin turboshaft Lycoming engines which is unusual for an executive "puddle-jumper" but nowhere near mach speeds.
When you can print every third frame of a 35mm. camera negative you can make an executive chopper with some fiberglass option add-ons look pretty good for way less than a billion dollars.
I enjoyed the tv show a lot ... in fact I have the complete DVD set ... but we do not yet have the ability to make real helicopters that can do the things it could do.
And, good grief, the ADF pod tubes were bigger than two inches ....... :facepalm:
-
Airwolf could go from zero to Mach one in ten seconds from sea level to 40,000ft. [tinfoil]
Now, the actual helicopter was a Bell 222 which tops out about 165 MPH. It did have twin turboshaft Lycoming engines which is unusual for an executive "puddle-jumper" but nowhere near mach speeds.
When you can print every third frame of a 35mm. camera negative you can make an executive chopper with some fiberglass option add-ons look pretty good for way less than a billion dollars.
I enjoyed the tv show a lot ... in fact I have the complete DVD set ... but we do not yet have the ability to make real helicopters that can do the things it could do.
And, good grief, the ADF pod tubes were bigger than two inches ....... :facepalm:
Lighten up Francis
-
Lighten up Francis
Who the ____ is Francis?? ??? [popcorn]
-
Oh, I did not earlier see the pusher prop in the rear. I thought they went with the co-axial rotors (like Kamov) just to eliminate the tail rotor. Hmm, this should have some speed then with the auxiliary prop.
Ayep.
OTS engines?
From whom?
LHTEC T800-LHT-801
Interesting. Is it constant or variable? My limited knowledge would lead me to believe that the design for increased speed would somewhat negatively affect the maneuverability that you'd have with a standard tail rotor. From what you said though, that's not only not the case, but you're increasing maneuverability. You're making my brain hurt. :P :laugh:
Variable, I believe.
Increased speed does negatively affect maneuverability (with varying degrees of how just negatively), but you'd also not be gunning the engines if you were making a tight turn. Usually. Reason maneuverability is improved is because the tail rotor speed largely effects which direction you're aiming in a conventional. With the X2, you just use the rotor mast. Plus there's some additional physics involving the blade movement. But yes, increasing speed and maneuverability both.
-
Who the ____ is Francis?? ??? [popcorn]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM)
-
Looks like the pusher prop is a must, I would assume the main rotor is pretty limited in terms of forward tilt of the tip path plane that regular helos use to go forward. Should lessen the rotor loading too, less pitch needed for forward motion. Fast. Want one in my garage, please send Hellfires and big gun.
-
I have to say one of my favorite parts of the video wasn't the high-tech stuff, it was the archival footage of (I presume) Sikorsky doing a test flight in his suit and hat. :)
-
Looks kinda small for eight people....unless they're hobbits or something....
...does this mean they're changing the slogan to "An Army of One-Half?".....
=D
-
4 Spacemarines get strapped to the wing pods in powersuits
-
100mm recoilless aircraft autocannon existed from the 1930's. Make orf that what you will.
-
LHTEC T800-LHT-801
:cool:
Too bad they didn't call us for some more maintenance software =(
-
Looks kinda small for eight people....unless they're hobbits or something....
...does this mean they're changing the slogan to "An Army of One-Half?".....
=D
MH-6 swings two crew and 4 really bad dudes. Of course they have to sit out on the porch. Those things are tiny.
-
Who the ____ is Francis?? ??? [popcorn]
Don't you play 'Left 4 Dead'? That game ROCKS!
Of course, Francis would say, "I hate this game!"
=D
Airwolf also rocked. Even if the physics didn't work (it carried HOW many weapons, HOW much ammo and fuel and that big-ol' computer suite in back? Shyeah, right...). At least it did up until the third season, when they lost the ability to pay for the use of the actual 'copter and used stock footage and the 1.5 meter RC version.
-
I don't expect this to fare any better than the RAH 66. Yea it may be a more modern design but in these budgetary times I don't see them approving production.
It may run for a decade or so as a development project and never go to production. That seems to be the favorite way to waste money these days. I don't have a lot of faith in gov't aircraft programs.
-
I don't expect this to fare any better than the RAH 66. Yea it may be a more modern design but in these budgetary times I don't see them approving production.
It may run for a decade or so as a development project and never go to production. That seems to be the favorite way to waste money these days. I don't have a lot of faith in gov't aircraft programs.
Except it's privately funded. Gives us more rights to the technology, of course. And we're going to slap it into civil aircraft as well.
-
Rev, it looks good. Unfortunately, with the leadership of the country clueless and bankrupt, I don't see any new starts in DoD any time soon. Maybe AFSOC or ASOC.
As a VSTOL test pilot, it warms the cockles of my heart.
TC
-
Except it's privately funded. Gives us more rights to the technology, of course. And we're going to slap it into civil aircraft as well.
A maneuverable helo with high speed could be very useful for medical transport. That'd be pretty sweet to see.
-
A maneuverable helo with high speed could be very useful for medical transport. That'd be pretty sweet to see.
Grow the platform and it could be everything that the V22 was promised to be....fast short range transport.
-
Rev, it looks good. Unfortunately, with the leadership of the country clueless and bankrupt, I don't see any new starts in DoD any time soon. Maybe AFSOC or ASOC.
As a VSTOL test pilot, it warms the cockles of my heart.
TC
Yea, that's basically what everyone is assuming. USSOCOM is practically drooling over it, as we have a functional prototype and are building additional militarized prototypes.
Grow the platform and it could be everything that the V22 was promised to be....fast short range transport.
Oddly, that was Preacherman's comment. Slap the tech on a CH-53 body. Maybe in another decade or so.
-
Grow the platform and it could be everything that the V22 was promised to be....fast short range transport.
The V-22 already IS everything it was promised to be: 10,000 pounds payload to 100-200 miles at twice the speed of any existing helicopter. It's expensive to buy and expensive to operate, but it does the job. If the CH-53K comes through after they finish development, the Marine Corps will be well-equipped with medium- and heavy-lift aircraft. The UH-1Y light utility helo is performing well in initial deployments, and the AH-1Z is about to replace the excellent Whiskey Cobras with even better performance.
Fixed-wing for the Corps is, of course, another story.
TC
-
The V-22 already IS everything it was promised to be: 10,000 pounds payload to 100-200 miles at twice the speed of any existing helicopter. It's expensive to buy and expensive to operate, but it does the job. If the CH-53K comes through after they finish development, the Marine Corps will be well-equipped with medium- and heavy-lift aircraft. The UH-1Y light utility helo is performing well in initial deployments, and the AH-1Z is about to replace the excellent Whiskey Cobras with even better performance.
Fixed-wing for the Corps is, of course, another story.
TC
I think Bell had hopes that they would have civilian V22's in widespread use by now.
-
4 SpaceAngryMarines get strapped to the wing pods in powersuits
Fixed that for you. =D
-
Isn't "Angry Marine" a redundancy?
-
Isn't "Angry Marine" a redundancy?
Marines I see as two breeds, Rottweilers or Dobermans, because Marines come in two varieties, big and mean, or skinny and mean. They're aggressive on the attack and tenacious on defense. They've got really short hair and they always go for the throat.
RAdm. "Jay" R. Stark, USN; 10 November 1995
-
100mm recoilless aircraft autocannon existed from the 1930's. Make orf that what you will.
I'm aware of the WWII B-25 with a 75mm cannon, and of course the Spectre gunship with a 105 recoilless, but I'm not aware of 100mm recoilless aircraft autocannon from the 1930s. In fact, I thought the recoilless rifle was a WWII development.
Please post a link - I'm interested in enlightenment.
-
The recoil-less [this is how the spellchecker tells me to write it] gun in question was a soviet setup invented by Kurchevsky.
Kurchevsky was a real-world mad scientist in service of the Soviet Army, whose main idea was to arm everything with recoilless automatic guns. Sadly he a)was unable to figure out a reliable feed mechanism and b) had competing recoil-less gun inventors dealt with (such as Kondakov, who had developed a reliable 75mm automatic recoilless gun). As such, after he was , in turn, executed by Stalin, the Soviet Union soured on recoil-less guns for decades to come, axing many very promising developments in the field.
Kurchevsky - being completely insane - worked on rearming the entire Soviet Army with recoilless guns, down to 12-inch naval cannon (which were actually successful in testing, but aborted with the execution of Kurchevsky. Suffice to say here that a 12-inch gun was mounted and tested on a light destroyer, and plans were already being made for a dual 12-inch system.)
In the air, Kurchevsky was working on 75mm air-to-air guns (to be used on enemy bombers), and 100mm ground attack guns. Here's an image of the latter:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommi.narod.ru%2Ftxt%2Fshirad%2F036.jpg&hash=6c518db396cfec9269c1a29022d32bbed5cdc5eb)
Finally, a 152mm air-to-ground gun was still on the drawing board when Kurchevsky was executed.
-
I have a warm spot in my heart for recoilless rifles.