Not sure I understand. The overall configuration is a classic penny farthing (single top rotor and anti-torque tail rotor) plusOne blade and no stabilizing one?..
Ah, did't saw that small tail rotor, only big one. My bad.Not sure I understand. The overall configuration is a classic penny farthing (single top rotor and anti-torque tail rotor) plusOne blade and no stabilizing one?..
a pusher prop. The anti-torque rotor is stuck out at the end of one of the horizontal tail surfaces and is a bit hard to see but it's there.
Boeing is hedging its bets. Likely they feel FVL Cap Set 3 is 50/50. Even if it does succeed, the attack variant is unfunded. Also of late Boeing has way underbid military programs with good success. I would not be surprised to see Boeing make the "SpeedApache" (my term) a very lucrative proposal.Given your expertise in this area I defer to your judgement regarding the relative competitiveness between a compound wing helicopter vs an advancing blade design.
However, given the current state of development with the Sikorsky prototypes, would computer and wind tunnel models be sufficient to sway Army opinion? I would guess they would need to see a prototype prove out speed and range performance and that will take a good amount of IR&D dollars from Boeing.
For the amount of redesign this would require why not switch to a rigid rotor to maximize the increase in speed?
I too was at the same VFS conference this week in Philly ...so saw the scale model as they were setting up. Also w.r.t Boeing I went to Leonardo facility outside the city and saw first USAF MH-139 and then the second one waiting to be assembledAH-64Z!
One of the authors of the technical paper moved to AV within the last six months, but he had worked on the wind tunnel tests while working at Boeing Mesa - so that's why he was listed. He said the wind tunnel tests had been going on for the past two or three years with very inconsistent funding (not unusual).Interesting to note that Boeing do compound Apache work in cooperation with AeroVironment
They considered several levels of redesign. In the presentation, Boeing mentioned that they cut the drag of the standard Apache airframe by 25% just with fairings and cosmetics. They did go further than that, but it was decided that it would be more appealing cost-wise to not go too deep with the mods (the propulsion/transmission/rotor). Essentially an 80/20 solution.For the amount of redesign this would require why not switch to a rigid rotor to maximize the increase in speed?
Yeah, there is definitely something odd here. I suspect it's actually a typo, that someone in marketing accidentally pulled the MV of a 30x173 round and used it on the brochure for LW30 Prox.I am a bit skeptical of that large increase in muzzle velocity that LW30 airburst ammunition is said to provide. If there was some major advance in propellant wouldn't we have heard more about it and wouldn't they be applying to many other calibers?
Spike NLOS continues to be looked at, has been for awhile but it is too slow to defeat APS and accomplish SEAD or counter air. Off the shelf doesn't seem to fit the bill. Classic procurement death valley...want a real capability you gotta pay for it to be developed. ...or in this case it MLMS and SPARK were started but not completed. Real requirements not fulfilled due to human foibles.A Spike NLOS missile was fired from an Apache attack helicopter at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, as part of an experiment that will help the Army shape a requirement for a long-range precision munition for its aircraft that can penetrate enemy territory.www.defensenews.com