JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs

I suspect that SIK/LMCO would offer that the impact statement; "The U.S. Army is staking its flying future on aircraft can cruise like planes over vast expanses of the Pacific and Africa..." is horribly tilt rotor centric statement.
 
Trimming the Threshold requirement to 230 allows Sikorsky to stay credible, while keeping Objective at 280 allows the Army to credit Bell's superior cruise speed when scoring the bids. All in all, not bad.
 
Spyclip said:
_Del_ said:
F-14D said:
And I believe that technology is already in use on other rotor blades.
Click to expand...
Who are the other companies with an automated fiber laying capability for something the size and complexity of a rotor blade? I know there are plenty of companies including Airbus and Boeing who are exploring different applications for AFP, but I don't know of any rotor blades being produced this way except the Boeing ones for this project. And 11 days for blade lay up is pretty impressive, now that they've got it working.
Click to expand...

For the record, both the Bell 429 and the AW609 blades have been built using automated fiber placement for well over a decade. This was not a new process, and it was not the Army that "forced" them into using it. They presented it as an advantage to meet the required rates for production and claimed it would not be an issue.
Click to expand...
Apologies for getting back late on this. Do you have a citation for this? My understanding was that the main blades were still being laid by hand, assisted by some automated processes.

It was Boeing hubris that caused this snafu, and not understanding the process for blades vs fuselage construction. Sikorsky mind-blowingly allowed Boeing to design and fab blades and blade tooling for the program. The Boeing guys at Mesa completely dropped the ball with the spar mandrel design and made some very basic composite-design oversights with its layup.
Click to expand...
Again my reasonably (but by no means exhaustively-) informed understanding was the main delay had been sag in the tooling-- which is certainly an "oversight", but had nothing to do with the design of the blade.


The idea the S-97 met its goals is humorous.
Click to expand...
As I said, they met the FARA requirement two years ago...

There have been no demonstrations of anything approaching ADS-33 level 1 handling or any of the extreme attitude-hold magic they talk about all the time.
Click to expand...
I think you're going to learn this is false.
 
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
  4. Volume 72 Issue 1
  5. Viper CNC fibre placement system for tiltrotor aircraft

Viper CNC fibre placement system for tiltrotor aircraft​


Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
ISSN: 0002-2667
Article publication date: 1 February 2000




Keywords​

Citation​

(2000), "Viper CNC fibre placement system for tiltrotor aircraft", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 72 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/aeat.2000.12772aab.006
Download as .RIS

Publisher​

:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2000, MCB UP Limited

Viper CNC fibre placement system for tiltrotor aircraft​

Keywords Cincinnati Machine, Fibre, Helicopters
Cincinnati Machine reports that it has shipped the first compact model of its Viper CNC Fibre Placement System to US-based Bell Helicopter Textron. The Viper FPS-1200 will be used to automate construction of composite structures for the Bell 609, the civil tiltrotor aircraft.
Precision fibre placement is thought to serve four key improvement objectives for aerospace manufacturers, these being:
Click to expand...
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/aeat.2000.12772aab.006/full/html
 
_Del_ said:
Spyclip said:
_Del_ said:
F-14D said:
And I believe that technology is already in use on other rotor blades.
Click to expand...
Who are the other companies with an automated fiber laying capability for something the size and complexity of a rotor blade? I know there are plenty of companies including Airbus and Boeing who are exploring different applications for AFP, but I don't know of any rotor blades being produced this way except the Boeing ones for this project. And 11 days for blade lay up is pretty impressive, now that they've got it working.
Click to expand...

For the record, both the Bell 429 and the AW609 blades have been built using automated fiber placement for well over a decade. This was not a new process, and it was not the Army that "forced" them into using it. They presented it as an advantage to meet the required rates for production and claimed it would not be an issue.
Click to expand...
Apologies for getting back late on this. Do you have a citation for this? My understanding was that the main blades were still being laid by hand, assisted by some automated processes.
Click to expand...

The 429 blade design is a structural skin that is essentially filled with composite tows placed by Viper AFMs - this is done in current daily full rate production.

The design patent filed in 2007 (8,632,310) for the 429 blade 2nd primary claim is actually "The helicopter rotor blade, according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the spar is fabricated using an automated fiber placement process."

The AW609 (at the time BA609) proprotor blade design predates the 429 and has its main spar fabricated with the same fiber placement system. It is an evolution of the even older automated fiber winding process used to manufacture V-22 grips. It is my understanding that despite Leonardo purchasing the 609 platform, Bell still manufactures the proprotor blades under contract.

_Del_ said:
It was Boeing hubris that caused this snafu, and not understanding the process for blades vs fuselage construction. Sikorsky mind-blowingly allowed Boeing to design and fab blades and blade tooling for the program. The Boeing guys at Mesa completely dropped the ball with the spar mandrel design and made some very basic composite-design oversights with its layup.
Click to expand...
Again my reasonably (but by no means exhaustively-) informed understanding was the main delay had been sag in the tooling-- which is certainly an "oversight", but had nothing to do with the design of the blade.
Click to expand...

You should ask your sources about the original design of the torque wrap ply shapes and how they behaved during expansion.

_Del_ said:
The idea the S-97 met its goals is humorous.
Click to expand...
As I said, they met the FARA requirement two years ago...
Click to expand...

The fact that the S-97 itself predated the FARA program by nearly a half decade makes it odd to use FARA performance figures as its target baseline, especially in light that Sikorsky confidently touted a minimum 240 knot cruise speed for years beforehand.

They have not met their own goals on any modern ABC ship outside of X2, so to plant a stake in the ground and claim "mission accomplished" at 75% of design target strikes me as humorous.

_Del_ said:
There have been no demonstrations of anything approaching ADS-33 level 1 handling or any of the extreme attitude-hold magic they talk about all the time.
Click to expand...
I think you're going to learn this is false.
Click to expand...

I can confidently say that there have been a total of zero published flight demonstrations where level 1 handling qualities were demonstrated with requisite rates in pitch, roll, or (particularly) yaw on any ABC aircraft historically.

If any of these had been accomplished over the Jupiter swamps with Raider I would eat my shoe if Sikorsky would decline to publicize such footage.

The fact that the V-280 was able to perform these maneuvers at double the gross weight of S-97 makes the ongoing ad nauseum Sikorsky marketing of mythical extreme rigid rotor agility that much more egregious.

All of this is to say absolutely nothing of SB1's lack of demonstrating anything of note whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
How is an August 2020 talk about the Trump-Pentagon by you-pay-he-plays-Loren Thompson still relevant today?
Click to expand...
Obviously the industrial problem is and going to continue to worsen..

Still waiting for some sort, any sort of contribution...anything.
 
Enlighten me on its relevance. Some highlights? When that link dies, so does its message.
 
How strange it is that there is a confidence that you did not even read the article.
 
I asked you a question, then gave my reason for asking it. You dump a link in this thread without providing context, and answer with petulance. Noted.
 
Arjen said:
I asked you a question, then gave my reason for asking it. You dump a link in this thread without providing context, and answer with petulance. Noted.
Click to expand...
yasotay said:
Gents, plz.
Click to expand...
Nah, he's got a point here. Another board I visit has a rule that when posting a link to an article or a youtube vid, it is no more polite than to provide a summary, or, in the case of an article, a quote of a paragraph or two* that best summarizes it.

This forces people to make their own point, and it saves people from watching long rambling youtube vids.

Not everyone has the time or the subscriptions to read every link and watch every video.

*IIRC two paragraphs is the maximum allowable under fair use rules
 
I will bite. The gist of Loren Thompson's message - correct if I'm wrong - is a warning that starving the big Boeing plant in Pennsylvania might cause grief to Trump in the 2020 presidential elections. Thompson writes, prior to the elections, that the state is a true swing state with small margins of victory in the recent past. An interesting item from a historical/political point of view, but no longer of much relevance to this thread.

I would have appreciated jsport providing a summary himself.
 
MihoshiK said:
Arjen said:
I asked you a question, then gave my reason for asking it. You dump a link in this thread without providing context, and answer with petulance. Noted.
Click to expand...
yasotay said:
Gents, plz.
Click to expand...
Nah, he's got a point here. Another board I visit has a rule that when posting a link to an article or a youtube vid, it is no more polite than to provide a summary, or, in the case of an article, a quote of a paragraph or two* that best summarizes it.
Click to expand...
Missing information, bias, and doing others homework for them... How about some have the subscriptions and are adding to your knowledge for free.

More like "hold a grudge" piling on from non-contributors. It has been said if some people don't hate you, you must not be doing anything.
 
Indeed, i almost did not recognize it was Invictus until i saw the asymmetric exhaust and the internal launcher. It's such a defining feature. Interesting....are they trying to lose weight? or it's a handling qualities issue? it's kind of a big change.
 
It's pretty much a completely different helicopter

V1.00
Bell 360 V1.00 - front.jpg
V2.00
Bell 360 V2.00 - front.jpg

V1.00
Bell 360 V1.00 - side left.jpg
V2.00
Bell 360 V2.00 - side left.jpg

V1.00
Bell 360 V1.00 - side.jpg
V2.00
Bell 360 V2.00 - side.jpg

The whole tail and rear section overall, exhaust angle and position, intakes (now missing on the right side on V2.00), landing gear, wings and canopy frame as well.
And it seems to have been slimmed considerably when seen from the front.
 
Its no secret in the rotary wing world that from a weight and performance perspective, the open tail rotor is nearly universally superior. This doesn't surprise me one bit.
 
I thought it might be a weight saving measure at first as well. However, given other events, it may actually be a somewhat panicked attempt to minimise the effects of ongoing material shortages affecting the aerospace industry among others.
 
They might have had to temper their expectations with performances regarding the power to weight ratio.
A more nimble design will have more power for acceleration, maneuvering or hot high and Humid conditions.
Moreover, the smaller rotor (hub head with reduced diameter) will be better for canyons flights and urban warfare, a strong demand recurrent among all the requirements.
 
Moose said:
Has an even more pronounced "son of Cobra" look head-on now.
Click to expand...
Exactly, thus an opinion that there is startling lack of innovation as well as capability (limited payload etc) in what is being presented and eventually purchased.. Programmed obsolescence. A 1990's cobra is not a 2040s aircraft.
 
Moose said:
Has an even more pronounced "son of Cobra" look head-on now.
Click to expand...
First was Son of Comanche and I agree with you, Son of Cobra. I think Bell is doing some smart, pre-determinate planning for cost reductions and weight cuts as well with a more conventional tail rotor system along with the other feature changes. As I stated in a previous post, I hope the Army does not do to these two programs what they did to Comanche or we'll be in deep "Son of Something".
 
jsport said:
MihoshiK said:
Arjen said:
I asked you a question, then gave my reason for asking it. You dump a link in this thread without providing context, and answer with petulance. Noted.
Click to expand...
yasotay said:
Gents, plz.
Click to expand...
Nah, he's got a point here. Another board I visit has a rule that when posting a link to an article or a youtube vid, it is no more polite than to provide a summary, or, in the case of an article, a quote of a paragraph or two* that best summarizes it.
Click to expand...
Missing information, bias, and doing others homework for them... How about some have the subscriptions and are adding to your knowledge for free.

More like "hold a grudge" piling on from non-contributors. It has been said if some people don't hate you, you must not be doing anything.
Click to expand...
That was actually a comment on general board behavior here, and not specific to you.
 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericte...ra-as-its-kick-in-the-door-attack-helicopter/
Some quotes
Brigadier General Walter Rugen, Director of the Army’s Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team, said in an interview that the “critical path” in future multi-domain operations is the Army’s ability to penetrate anti-access, area denial (A2AD) environments. According to Rugen, Apache is not the aircraft that will do this.

“The FARA and its ecosystem is really our penetration force in the lower tier of the air domain. That force is going to be able to find, fix and finish pacing threats,” says Rugen. “We’ll generate the ability for other players across the joint force to maneuver in that freed-up airspace. Then we’ll start disintegrating [the enemy forces] and open up a corridor.”

“And really, I don’t think Apache participates in the penetration phase. I think FARA and the FARA ecosystem does that… If we’ve generated that joint force freedom of maneuver and our heavy attack assets are moving forward, which includes the Apache, we’re winning.”

“We don’t feel the Apache has the ability to operate from the relative sanctuary that the FVL [aircraft] can. We’re going to have to live with the current fleet for a while… Truly, most of our integration work, most of our studies, modeling and war-gaming has been tying the two future [FVL] platforms together, not necessarily diligently finding a place for Apache because there’s a capability gap there that we need to close with reach. Apache won’t be in our highest end fights until FARA and FLRAA can generate that freedom of maneuver.”

“It’s just like the Air Force is saying with their 4th Gen fighters. If we generate that freedom of maneuver we’re winning. Until we do that with our future capability [FARA], the Apache has issues because it lacks the reach of the advanced rotorcraft configurations.”

Again, this begged the question as to whether there has been any thinking about joint tactics, particularly if, as Rugen says, FARA will “outsource lethality.” Rugen’s answer suggests that it will be an ad hoc process.
Click to expand...

I really wonder how such conclusions were even possible
 
shin_getter said:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericte...ra-as-its-kick-in-the-door-attack-helicopter/
Some quotes
Brigadier General Walter Rugen, Director of the Army’s Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team, said in an interview that the “critical path” in future multi-domain operations is the Army’s ability to penetrate anti-access, area denial (A2AD) environments. According to Rugen, Apache is not the aircraft that will do this.

“The FARA and its ecosystem is really our penetration force in the lower tier of the air domain. That force is going to be able to find, fix and finish pacing threats,” says Rugen. “We’ll generate the ability for other players across the joint force to maneuver in that freed-up airspace. Then we’ll start disintegrating [the enemy forces] and open up a corridor.”

“And really, I don’t think Apache participates in the penetration phase. I think FARA and the FARA ecosystem does that… If we’ve generated that joint force freedom of maneuver and our heavy attack assets are moving forward, which includes the Apache, we’re winning.”

“We don’t feel the Apache has the ability to operate from the relative sanctuary that the FVL [aircraft] can. We’re going to have to live with the current fleet for a while… Truly, most of our integration work, most of our studies, modeling and war-gaming has been tying the two future [FVL] platforms together, not necessarily diligently finding a place for Apache because there’s a capability gap there that we need to close with reach. Apache won’t be in our highest end fights until FARA and FLRAA can generate that freedom of maneuver.”

“It’s just like the Air Force is saying with their 4th Gen fighters. If we generate that freedom of maneuver we’re winning. Until we do that with our future capability [FARA], the Apache has issues because it lacks the reach of the advanced rotorcraft configurations.”

Again, this begged the question as to whether there has been any thinking about joint tactics, particularly if, as Rugen says, FARA will “outsource lethality.” Rugen’s answer suggests that it will be an ad hoc process.
Click to expand...

I really wonder how such conclusions were even possible
Click to expand...
The senior officers not only have to try to develop a top notch aircraft for the least amount of money possible, but they have to try and SELL the program to a bunch of twenty somethings, in Brooks Brother suits with Harvard business degrees who have rarely been out of air conditioned offices, let alone having any idea what combat is like.

The FARA even has "Attack" in its name, and now the pundits are shocked that the capability is being discussed. They ASSUMED they knew what the mission was. Of course when there is not much to report and you have a deadline you run with the juicy bits you can. Honestly I think the General was doing a bit of reconnaissance with his remarks to get a feel for what areas he would have to be aware of.

Sorry for venting, but the tone (and anything with Aboulafia) tends to set me on edge. FLRAA is at risk? The one program that Congress has consistently put money into. The one that actually might have some use by the other services. The one that is tracking exactly on the DoD timeline for development having gone through a text book demonstrator phase. Just because the Army has not talked openly about what they are doing does not mean that they are sitting on their thumbs.
 
Last edited:
What is "Army’s ability to penetrate anti-access, area denial (A2AD) environments" if it doesnt have a CONUS to theatre capability like the Karem would have had?
 
jsport said:
What is "Army’s ability to penetrate anti-access, area denial (A2AD) environments" if it doesnt have a CONUS to theatre capability like the Karem would have had?
Click to expand...
A fair point, and one I suspect the Army is trying to deal with going forward. One of the reasons that the current President has gone to such lengths to re-energize alliances and partnerships is the understanding that we are going to have to start somewhere other than the objective country/area. I suspect that logistics will be a tough area. While it is great that you can fly a tactical air vehicle vast distances, if the fuel and ammo, maintainers, and command and control elements are not there already or landing shortly after, your flying machines won't do much but be targets.
 
yasotay said:
jsport said:
What is "Army’s ability to penetrate anti-access, area denial (A2AD) environments" if it doesnt have a CONUS to theatre capability like the Karem would have had?
Click to expand...
A fair point, and one I suspect the Army is trying to deal with going forward. One of the reasons that the current President has gone to such lengths to re-energize alliances and partnerships is the understanding that we are going to have to start somewhere other than the objective country/area. I suspect that logistics will be a tough area. While it is great that you can fly a tactical air vehicle vast distances, if the fuel and ammo, maintainers, and command and control elements are not there already or landing shortly after, your flying machines won't do much but be targets.
Click to expand...
Back in the DARPA, RAND, Carlisle Army After Next (AAN) texts, minimizing logistics and even logistics bases off shore ie the very minimum on-shore footprint w/ no guarantee of any airfields were described. Those texts understood what many cruise and ballistics missiles meant.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom