• 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

Sounds like they’ve had some hiccups.

www.flightglobal.com

PARIS: Sikorsky defiant on SB-1 timeline

Sikorsky hopes that it can re-invigorate the test programme for the SB-1 Defiant high-speed helicopter it is developing in partnership with Boeing, after a delayed maiden sortie and sluggish start to flight evaluations.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
phrogdriver said:
Sounds like they’ve had some hiccups.

www.flightglobal.com

PARIS: Sikorsky defiant on SB-1 timeline

Sikorsky hopes that it can re-invigorate the test programme for the SB-1 Defiant high-speed helicopter it is developing in partnership with Boeing, after a delayed maiden sortie and sluggish start to flight evaluations.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...

Any idea if it is indeed the airframe or gearbox problem mentioned in the article or something else? I remarked 4 years ago that I had not seen anyone make a rigid rotor system above 20,000 lbs and wondered if you could make a flexbeam that could scale up for a bigger rotor system, much less a coaxial rotor system.
 
It went 130+ KIAS. Weren't you listening to the audio?

It looked like they were testing specific aspects of the tail prop during low-speed flight, given the pirouette and gun dive (or whatever attack bros call it). You can see the prop change speed a lot in the middle of the video.
 
IKE said:
It went 130+ KIAS. Weren't you listening to the audio?

It looked like they were testing specific aspects of the tail prop during low-speed flight, given the pirouette and gun dive (or whatever attack bros call it). You can see the prop change speed a lot in the middle of the video.
Click to expand...
Cue BD pitch on how fast the V-280 has gone ?
 
What's fascinating to me, especially after reading the H-60 history book, is how much the design specifications guided the program and created a wildly versatile helicopter that's been in production for 30 years. Things like takeoff performance out of an LZ in fpm, that lead to rotor loading design, etc.

I think FVL is cool and all, but these are really complex machines we're throwing money at when we could be trying to make the next Huey, Hawk, etc.
 
SynixMan said:
What's fascinating to me, especially after reading the H-60 history book, is how much the design specifications guided the program and created a wildly versatile helicopter that's been in production for 30 years. Things like takeoff performance out of an LZ in fpm, that lead to rotor loading design, etc.

I think FVL is cool and all, but these are really complex machines we're throwing money at when we could be trying to make the next Huey, Hawk, etc.
Click to expand...
While I'm certainly not saying FVL results will be as robust, prolific, and downright awesome as the -60, I think you've missed that SPEC is exactly what's driving the complexity. The FVL requirements prioritize cruise speeds that you just can't achieve with a single main rotor solution (or tandem, sorry phrog fans).

I agree that an updated Hawk-like vehicle with modern AFCS, new mission systems, and whatever the opposite of the Lockheed Martin cockpit is would be sweet, but it wouldn't go >200 knots.
 
IKE said:
While I'm certainly not saying FVL results will be as robust, prolific, and downright awesome as the -60, I think you've missed that SPEC is exactly what's driving the complexity. The FVL requirements prioritize cruise speeds that you just can't achieve with a single main rotor solution (or tandem, sorry phrog fans).

I agree that an updated Hawk-like vehicle with modern AFCS, new mission systems, and whatever the opposite of the Lockheed Martin cockpit is would be sweet, but it wouldn't go >200 knots.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of effort is going into realizing the 200kt+ cruise. I just think it's wasted effort that could be spent elsewhere.
 
Spending-wise...I would like to see terminal and enroute RNAV GPS capability! Thanks to the failed Comanche, the Army had the money to fund the 60M, a HUGE improvement. However, it is negligent that we are still waiting for the capability to fly RNAV approaches in our own country set on eliminating VORs.

But then again, a 200 kt cruise and a corresponding increase in range is a game changer for the Army. Doctrine will change significantly, causing our potential peer enemies some significant capital expenditures to counter the capabilities, IF they recognize the capabilities and choose to react to them.
 
SynixMan said:
What's fascinating to me, especially after reading the H-60 history book, is how much the design specifications guided the program and created a wildly versatile helicopter that's been in production for 30 years. Things like takeoff performance out of an LZ in fpm, that lead to rotor loading design, etc.

I think FVL is cool and all, but these are really complex machines we're throwing money at when we could be trying to make the next Huey, Hawk, etc.
Click to expand...

“We’re just throwing money away on these really complex tanks when we could be trying to breed the next horses.”
 
IKE said:
It went 130+ KIAS. Weren't you listening to the audio?

It looked like they were testing specific aspects of the tail prop during low-speed flight, given the pirouette and gun dive (or whatever attack bros call it). You can see the prop change speed a lot in the middle of the video.
Click to expand...

...so a low speed demo, then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top