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

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04...d-about-job-cuts-at-sikorsky-helicopter-unit/

The Connecticut delegation is of course primarily concerned about the jobs aspect of things, but I do wish there was some more questioning about the Army's logic with this decision. How much input did Army helicopter crewmen get in the big picture? How can we be reassured they aren't making the same mistake made 20 years ago when the RAH-66 was cancelled citing the exact same reasoning?

Personally, I am still in favor of having such a manned dedicated reconnaissance helicopter used as FAC for drones. If the "nothing but drones" crowd always has their way it won't be long now before we start seeing cuts to the fleet of AH-64s. And despite the talk I have yet to hear anything about a new program for a relatively large, unmanned rotorcraft like UCAR was supposed to be.
 
yasotay said:
At this point there really is no choice.
Click to expand...
Camr across these 3 AH-6Js at Drake Field in Fayetteville, AR back on March 9th. 35 years old and still going strong. Always wonder what parts are still on there from the production line....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • z89-25353 AH-6J - 1.jpg
    z89-25353 AH-6J - 1.jpg
    548.5 KB · Views: 56
  • z89-25366 AH-6J - 1.jpg
    z89-25366 AH-6J - 1.jpg
    850 KB · Views: 37
  • z89-25374 AH-6J - 3.jpg
    z89-25374 AH-6J - 3.jpg
    536.3 KB · Views: 31
  • zMG_5443.jpg
    zMG_5443.jpg
    456.4 KB · Views: 35
yasotay said:
MH-6M still the staple of 160th SOAR for urban ops. Not likely to be replaced soon.
Click to expand...
Baugher has these list as AH-6J - is that still true or have they morphed into MH-6Ms or?!

Thanks! Mark
 
Desertfox said:
Question is, what will the Marines do to replace the Cobra?
Click to expand...
Different program, but they want something that can do 350-375 knots and fly just as far as an Osprey (~900nmi/1600km). Which is looking a lot like a V280 or a tandem cockpit gunship using the same wings/engines/proprotors.
 
Mark Nankivil said:
Baugher has these list as AH-6J - is that still true or have they morphed into MH-6Ms or?!

Thanks! Mark
Click to expand...
SOAR has two versions of the aircraft, based on a standard airframe. They define the gunship as AH-6M and the lift birds as MH-6M. I speculate that they can be made interchangeable, however, I am not sure if the "AH" version has specific targeting equipment that would make changing the MH "plank bird" into an AH "gun bird problematic and vice versa.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Different program, but they want something that can do 350-375 knots and fly just as far as an Osprey (~900nmi/1600km). Which is looking a lot like a V280 or a tandem cockpit gunship using the same wings/engines/proprotors.
Click to expand...
Not sure the FLRAA wing is designed to go ~350 knots. Drag, G loading, and pressures are significantly greater than ~250 knots. Out of my element with this hypothesis, so will defer to one of the "aero-types, " who is knowledgeable.
I would think that the USMC would be hesitant to do a new aircraft just now whereas the FLRAA, as is, can keep up with MV-22.
 
yasotay said:
Not sure the FLRAA wing is designed to go ~350 knots. Drag, G loading, and pressures are significantly greater than ~250 knots. Out of my element with this hypothesis, so will defer to one of the "aero-types, " who is knowledgeable.
I would think that the USMC would be hesitant to do a new aircraft just now whereas the FLRAA, as is, can keep up with MV-22.
Click to expand...
Didn't they test the V280 up past 325knots?

As for the tandem cockpit version, I was assuming literally the V280 wing with a narrower fuselage. Basically to make space for weapons bays or stub wings that could clear the rotor disc.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Didn't they test the V280 up past 325knots?

As for the tandem cockpit version, I was assuming literally the V280 wing with a narrower fuselage. Basically to make space for weapons bays or stub wings that could clear the rotor disc.
Click to expand...
If they did it was likely in a dive. I do recall they got to 305 knots for a short period. Vendors are reluctant to test one off air vehicles competing for the prize of the century (in Army Aviation at least) to the limit. Broken aircraft tend to find their way to the bottom of the list, especially if there is only one of them. IF they put a new fuselage on the wing and internalized the weapons, I suppose less drag would allow the aircraft to cruise at a higher speed.
 
yasotay said:
If they did it was likely in a dive. I do recall they got to 305 knots for a short period. Vendors are reluctant to test one off air vehicles competing for the prize of the century (in Army Aviation at least) to the limit. Broken aircraft tend to find their way to the bottom of the list, especially if there is only one of them. IF they put a new fuselage on the wing and internalized the weapons, I suppose less drag would allow the aircraft to cruise at a higher speed.
Click to expand...
V-247 Factsheet...
Screenshot_20240423_203426.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240423_203555.jpg
    Screenshot_20240423_203555.jpg
    680.2 KB · Views: 33
  • bell-v247-fact-sheet.pdf
    461.6 KB · Views: 7
Clearing out my office after 20 years. Amazing how much one finds. Sadly almost all of it is not available for posting. I am sure that some of this has been posted before, but I will post some things here on the chance it is not repetitive. First some AVX FVL work.
 

Attachments

  • AVX_doc.pdf
    1.7 MB · Views: 41
  • AVX_doc1.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 30
  • AVX_doc2.pdf
    734.4 KB · Views: 27
  • AVX_Light.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 24
  • AVX_Light1.pdf
    2.8 MB · Views: 31
  • AVX_Med.pdf
    2.2 MB · Views: 32
  • AVX_Med1.pdf
    993.9 KB · Views: 26
yasotay said:
Clearing out my office after 20 years. Amazing how much one finds. Sadly almost all of it is not available for posting. I am sure that some of this has been posted before, but I will post some things here on the chance it is not repetitive. First some AVX FVL work.
Click to expand...
Finally retiring? What'cha gonna do when you grow up? :D
 
yasotay said:
Nope, moving to another office. I don't plan on growing up, having to much fun still. Besides grown ups are depressing.
Click to expand...
I hope bigger and better things found you, or failing that, that you find them quickly!
 
H_K said:
What was your assessment of the AVX designs?

E.g. Their gross weights always seemed quite light for their size… a little over optimistic perhaps?
Click to expand...
AVX was very aggressive with non-metalic structures and components. Many had a "this is great ... if you prove it" position regarding the weights. Honestly, I think the main gear box was most likely to be the highest risk for them, as the dynamics were adaptation from functional dynamic components found elsewhere. The rotor interaction with the ducted fans was a watch point but was mostly dealt with by down select.
Most would have liked to have seen AVX have an opportunity to fly, as the concept appeared to be very much in line with the expected requirements. Like other concepts however, once the DoD elected to make the Pacific the primary theater AVX got behind in meeting specifications.
 
The large chord wing under the coaxial rotor downwash was not boding well for the performances. Add the twin fan rotors with the short moment arm and you´ve got some weird design choice as seen from outside the project.

See how Airbus choose a different approach with their Racer:
- long moment arm
- short chord wings (biplane, wing staggered)
- Anhedral

At least for the point discussed here, that makes more sense.

But notice that with the single main rotor configuration, the high wing due to the rotor downwash is subject to rapid cyclic variation every time the cyclic is activated. With a thick wing with rounded leading edge and camber, inherent from a short chord, the local AoA and lift vector is affected and the roll stability perturbed. With tip rotors and the box wing, the effects are tempered but not toward the wing root.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom