• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Sikorsky S-97 Raider Ground Tests Today

An animated video of the FVL proposal from Sikorsky appeared today. The Bell tilt-rotor V-280 proposal is proven, if expensive, technology. My biggest concern for the Sikorsky is the flex beam on the rotors. Until the new Huey/Cobras came out at 18,000 lbs, the Bell 412 (11,900 lbs) was the biggest helicopter I knew of with a rigid rotor and flex beams. Wonder if you can physically scale the flex beam up to something around 30,000 lbs? Hope the test pilots / engineers here might have some insights.

 
Randy Daytona said:
An animated video of the FVL proposal from Sikorsky appeared today. The Bell tilt-rotor V-280 proposal is proven, if expensive, technology. My biggest concern for the Sikorsky is the flex beam on the rotors. Until the new Huey/Cobras came out at 18,000 lbs, the Bell 412 (11,900 lbs) was the biggest helicopter I knew of with a rigid rotor and flex beams. Wonder if you can physically scale the flex beam up to something around 30,000 lbs? Hope the test pilots / engineers here might have some insights.

Click to expand...


The narrator sounds like his day job is doing recruitment videos for the church of Scientology. I expected to see Tom Cruise or John Travlota in the cockpit.
 
Looks like they're flying with a different flight display for each pilot. When I flew the S-97 sim in Stratford, it had the display you see on the left in the video. I liked it uh loht. The whole screen is one big AI, so you don't have to scan/focus as much for a coarse idea of your attitude.
 
LoL, the "maneuverability" part of the video is slow rolls into standard rate turns.

Cool bird though. I've never seen a helicopter with a side stick before.
 
Weirder than side stick is the S-97's single collective (left seat has to use right hand)
 
Can anyone explain the need for FVL to me? I mean, I get the cool factor and the increased range being useful but 90% of what we do consists of flying laps around the boat and vertrep so how does spending extra and adding this much extra mechanical complexity benefit us? Wouldn't a fly-by-wire version of the 60 with the 60M improvements e simpler and suit us, as a Navy, better?
 
jtmedli said:
Can anyone explain the need for FVL to me? I mean, I get the cool factor and the increased range being useful but 90% of what we do consists of flying laps around the boat and vertrep so how does spending extra and adding this much extra mechanical complexity benefit us? Wouldn't a fly-by-wire version of the 60 with the 60M improvements e simpler and suit us, as a Navy, better?
Click to expand...

Marine: Long range escorts and long range RW OAS capability.
Navy: Long range CSAR and ASW capability?
 
Hotdogs said:
Marine: Long range escorts and long range RW OAS capability.
Navy: Long range CSAR and ASW capability?
Click to expand...

Yeah I get that but Navy leadership won't even let us fulfill existing CSAR and SOF RFFs so why even bother? My approach is probably a bit too cynical but if the leadership won't let us out of their "sight" then wtf good does long range CSAR do? Are we really going through all of this added complexity and what has to be added maintenance hours on more complex airframes for squadrons that are really only allowed to do plane guard, vertrep, and hauling ass and trash? Might as well just buy another 60 with better motors and rotors. I guess I'm the cynical luddite in the group though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top