• 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

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
My wonderment about these FVL demonstrators is why they're going for Wonder Choppers of the Future instead of an evolutionary approach. I thought the Army learned their lesson about big, risky technology leaps with Comanche (and the Marines with the Osprey).
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
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?

Ask and ye shall receive.

Sikorsky suggests MH-60 crossdeck
As the US Navy looks to add more capabilities onto its MH-60R, Sikorsky could keep the Seahawk’s avionics while lightening the aircraft’s load with a new composite cabin airframe.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sikorsky-suggests-mh-60-crossdeck-436673/

I mentioned earlier that rotary wing plays defense for the Navy - it comes down to endurance and how long you can stay in the air. Range and speed are secondary. The Navy will gladly take any developments the Army and Marines come up with, yet not have to spend any money on. And leave vertrep to the contractors - no need to waste 2 brand new H-60's and the associated manpower when 2 beat up 1970's vintage Pumas and a small crew can do the job just as well for a lower end-strength and less money.

My wonderment about these FVL demonstrators is why they're going for Wonder Choppers of the Future instead of an evolutionary approach. I thought the Army learned their lesson about big, risky technology leaps with Comanche (and the Marines with the Osprey).

For the Army and Marines, helicopters play offense and thus need range and speed. Physics and aero limit the top speed and thus range of conventional rotors - to make the next jump and play across the ranges the Pacific demands, you have to go either tilt-rotor, compound (wing and rotor), or ABC (advancing blade concept - rotors stacked above each other rotating in the opposite direction). The Marines have had good success with the V-22, good chance the Army will go the same direction with the simpler V-280 from Bell (although the Sikorsky S-97 style of this thread looks promising as well.) The test pilots on the board can get into the plusses and minuses their enlightened perspective affords.

EDIT: Updated article on the Bell V-280 tiltrotor.

Bell Helicopter expects V-280 tilt-rotor to fly in September

the V-280 is much smaller and allows passengers to exit from side doors instead of the back door on the V-22. Another critical difference is how the V-280 transitions from vertical to horizontal flight as only its gearboxes rotate on the aircraft. On the V-22, the entire engine rotates.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/b...s/baker-ahles-kaskovich/article147500579.html

D3_Army_Formation
 

samb

Active Member
To do the things we need to do on the Army attack/recon side of things, we need to be able to slow down and stay maneuverable. I haven't seen tilt rotors doing much at a hover other than taking off and landing. Can they mask and unmask, reposition rapidly, and throw the nose over to rapidly transition to forward flight? I think the next best thing for the Army is the composite helicopters like the S-97. The tilt rotors seem to be a great fit in the troop transport role though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IKE

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
To do the things we need to do on the Army attack/recon side of things, we need to be able to slow down and stay maneuverable. I haven't seen tilt rotors doing much at a hover other than taking off and landing. Can they mask and unmask, reposition rapidly, and throw the nose over to rapidly transition to forward flight? I think the next best thing for the Army is the composite helicopters like the S-97. The tilt rotors seem to be a great fit in the troop transport role though.
This.
My opinion, in short:
Coaxial+pusher = Helicopter, but faster
Tiltrotor = Transport plane w/ VTOL.
 

busdriver

Well-Known Member
None
IKE, how much of the V-22 hover mode maneuverability limitations are driven by very high disc loading vs swash plate / flapping hinge range of motion compromises?
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Would someone tell me more about these hovering "maneuverability limitations" of the V-22 that I never noticed in 11 years of flying them?

It's a 48,000 pound aircraft, not a MD-500, yes. But I flew plenty of -46 time before, and other than maybe a being able to reverse direction quickly while air taxiing sideways (which is a maneuver of pretty limited utility IMO), I have no idea what the hell you people are talking about.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
Would someone tell me more about these hovering "maneuverability limitations" of the V-22 that I never noticed in 11 years of flying them?

It's a 48,000 pound aircraft, not a MD-500, yes. But I flew plenty of -46 time before, and other than maybe a being able to reverse direction quickly while air taxiing sideways (which is a maneuver of pretty limited utility IMO), I have no idea what the hell you people are talking about.
I've only flown it a few times, but I also don't know of any unique limitations. I do know the Osprey used to have the ability to slide laterally w/o rolling, but that was removed after its misuse caused some damage to a test article.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
If by roll, you are referring to doing a high speed sideways taxi and try to abruptly reverse it, you may have issues, but after over 1300 hours, I've found its slow speed and hover characteristics are just fine.

There was a shipboard roll issue in DT, but the corrected that through software changes.

By the way, the 280 promises to be even more agile. And we'll see that in action by the end of the year...unlike its competitor....
 
Last edited:

Hotdogs

I don’t care if I hurt your feelings
pilot
Can they mask and unmask, reposition rapidly, and throw the nose over to rapidly transition to forward flight? .

You're thinking like helicopter dude with a platform that is more fixed wing. The whole point is to not have to use a lot or any of those techniques at all. Why mask/unmask from close terrain when I can sit in an orbit outside of visual and audible range 20km away with a sensor with no gimbal limits that sees much further than that? In addition to a weapon that can reach out touch whatever I need. Cold War era traditional assault support that everyone knows is rapidly changing and we really haven't worked out the kinks yet.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
My wonderment about these FVL demonstrators is why they're going for Wonder Choppers of the Future instead of an evolutionary approach. I thought the Army learned their lesson about big, risky technology leaps with Comanche (and the Marines with the Osprey).

The Marines learned that they can get a huge step forward in capability. Whatever its other issues, combatant commanders want that capability. That demand signal is a big part of the readiness problems in the community.

The Army learned that the Marines are stealing their bacon in regards to getting high-visibility tasking, because they have operational mobility that the Army lacks.
 
Last edited:

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The Marines learned that they can get a huge step forward in capability. Whatever it's other issues, combatant commanders want that capability. That demand signal is a big part of the readiness problems in the community.

I'm not knocking what the -22 can do; I'm saying that big leaps forward in technology can also mean 20+ years in development and a lot of political and budgetary migraines in the meantime. F-35 has burned up whatever political patience was left for expensive, high-technology programs that fall behind schedule or over-budget. The Army has already identified lack of an armed scout helo as their biggest capability gap; they can't afford (literally or figuratively) a repeat of their last Billion Dollar Wonder Chopper of the Future program. So S-97 looks awesome, but it's also a lot of new technology and thus a lot of programmatic risk.
 

Hotdogs

I don’t care if I hurt your feelings
pilot
I'm not knocking what the -22 can do; I'm saying that big leaps forward in technology can also mean 20+ years in development and a lot of political and budgetary migraines in the meantime.

You could say the same thing about a great deal of other programs. Just look at the Air Force.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
You could say the same thing about a great deal of other programs. Just look at the Air Force.

You could indeed say that. Look at the KC-46 fiasco - it's a tanker. Not a stealth tanker, or a space tanker, or an unmanned tanker. Just a big plane full of gas with a pipe out the back. But this irresistible urge DoD has to up-gizmo everything has it behind schedule and over-budget. For instance: they decided to seat the boomer up on the flight deck instead of back aft as in the -135 and -10. Just give him a camera and screen instead of a window. Difficulty: the boomers rely a lot on eyeballing closure rate to steer the boom to contact. Oh shit...I know! 3-D glasses!

No, not kidding:
getasset.aspx


I'm not against innovation. And as you say, @phrogdriver, new capabilities are needed. But technology innovation under our current fucked-up acquisition and procurement processes multiplies the risks exponentially. Innovating without fixing the system...what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
I'm not knocking what the -22 can do; I'm saying that big leaps forward in technology can also mean 20+ years in development and a lot of political and budgetary migraines in the meantime. F-35 has burned up whatever political patience was left for expensive, high-technology programs that fall behind schedule or over-budget. The Army has already identified lack of an armed scout helo as their biggest capability gap; they can't afford (literally or figuratively) a repeat of their last Billion Dollar Wonder Chopper of the Future program. So S-97 looks awesome, but it's also a lot of new technology and thus a lot of programmatic risk.

I agree it's a lot of risk...that's why they need a V-280!

They could buy another civilian derivative scout helo, or an improved Blackhawk for assault...and then need a new one in 10 years, because it'll already be obsolete the second it comes off the line.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I agree it's a lot of risk...that's why they need a V-280!

They could buy another civilian derivative scout helo, or an improved Blackhawk for assault...and then need a new one in 10 years, because it'll already be obsolete the second it comes off the line.

Not following your argument. The strategy of going leading edge, high-risk, revolutionary development is exactly how we've got in any one of several acquisition messes over the past few decades. F-35, LCS, KC-46, you name it. The virtue of the technology it goals isn't the issue; it's that we've got an aquisition and development process that makes a mess of it every. Single. Time. Until that process is reformed and seriously overhauled, it doesn't matter how cool or necessary something like a V-280 is.
 
Top