Sikorsky SH-X

Maveric

Maveric

Fight for yor Right!
Joined
14 January 2007
Messages
2,147
Reaction score
663
Hi all,

found this unknown project by Sikorsky. Do you have more info´s.
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky SH-X.jpg
    Sikorsky SH-X.jpg
    91.2 KB · Views: 841
Wow, what an odd bird. Where did you found this pic?
 
Found on FliegerRevue 1990, but without more informations... :-\
 
Is it an actual photo (all be it of a model maybe) or an artist's concept?

Regards,

Greg
 
Maveric said:
Found on FliegerRevue 1990, but without more informations... :-\
Click to expand...

Looks like it's missing a considerable portion of it's aft section. Any other views of it posted in the magazine? IIRC, this was Sikorsky's concept for a follow on to the SH-60 Seahawk utilising the ABC configuration. Well after 18 years, the concept is real now in the form of the X-2 (ableit an improved ABC design and inclusion of a pusher prop).
 
It is actually a design that Sikorsky worked on for a bit, although I dare say that they really never expected much to come of it. Somewhere I have a sketch of an assault version that was given in a briefing to the US Army back in the Army After Next Days. I will see if I can dig it up and scan it. Think about NH-90 sized... without a tail boom.

Found the briefing. As you can see I was not kidding about a sketch. This effort was done in the mid 1990's when the US Army was exploring ways to get to significantly greater operational maneuver capability over much greater distances. Air Mechanization was very much in vogue with the "jeune école" within the concepts community. That was before FCS became a 28 ton behemoth, the compromise between the traditionalist and the new school. While this is not an air mechanized carrier of any sort it was recognized that the desire to maneuver across significantly greater distances required completely new capabilities for dismounted vertical maneuver as well.
 

Attachments

  • SH-X_AAN.jpg
    SH-X_AAN.jpg
    196.2 KB · Views: 823
If anyone knows where I might find more information on this particular effort I would very much like to know where I might look.
 
While not exactly X2 tech, saw this recently while visting a certain rotorcraft industry leader. Thought I would share.
 

Attachments

  • IMAG0033.jpg
    IMAG0033.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 673
  • IMAG0034.jpg
    IMAG0034.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 589
  • IMAG0035.jpg
    IMAG0035.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 194
Is that a "new" design or just an old "new to us" design? Judging by what it's sitting next to I'm guessing the latter, but it certainly looks cool! Thanks for the pics. :)
 
yasotay said:
While not exactly X2 tech, saw this recently while visting a certain rotorcraft industry leader. Thought I would share.
Click to expand...

Very interesting! This looks a lot like a Westland SSRH with canards...
 
Ah! This is where the pictures disappeared to...
 
yasotay said:
Ah! This is where the pictures disappeared to...
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. Sorry, I should have sent you a PM about that. When something best fits another topic (as was the case here) then we mods sometimes take the liberty to split the post(s) in question and move them to where they best belong... :)
 
Too interesting, to be simply put aside ! ;)
Mainly based on the model photos, dimensions were roughly calculated by the rotor
diameter and the length of the Sidewinder, positions of the wheels were taken from
the sketch posted by Yasotay. As always, feel free to give advise for corrections !
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky_SH-X.gif
    Sikorsky_SH-X.gif
    100.5 KB · Views: 157
Stargazer2006 said:
yasotay said:
Ah! This is where the pictures disappeared to...
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. Sorry, I should have sent you a PM about that. When something best fits another topic (as was the case here) then we mods sometimes take the liberty to split the post(s) in question and move them to where they best belong... :)
Click to expand...
No problem really. Would have put them here in the first place had I recalled the thread.
 
Jemiba said:
Too interesting, to be simply put aside ! ;)
Mainly based on the model photos, dimensions were roughly calculated by the rotor
diameter and the length of the Sidewinder, positions of the wheels were taken from
the sketch posted by Yasotay. As always, feel free to give advise for corrections !
Click to expand...
Envy your ability to generate these "three view", off of fuzzy pictures, with such rapidity. Only comment, which could be just the photo angle, is that the upper deck behind the rotors seems a bit narrow at the exhaust ports.
 
Thank you ! Two heads are better than one ! I've tried to correct the aft part and replaced
the first version of the drawing.
 
Jemiba said:
I've tried to correct the aft part and replaced
the first version of the drawing.
Click to expand...

One humble suggestion: when you replace an older version, can you think of prefixing the file? (for instance: "SH-X_v02.gif") so that when saving the file we are sure to get the last one (or alternately, so we can keep all versions and compare their evolution!) Thanks!
 
Jemiba:
I would say that the canards would be more downwards. Refer to first pic in tread. Otherwise you would shoot your canards with you rockets on inboard station.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
... can you think of prefixing the file? (for instance: "SH-X_v02.gif") so that when saving the file we are sure to get the last one (or alternately, so we can keep all versions and compare their evolution!) Thanks!
Click to expand...

You're right, will use the same method as in the Arsenal 1301/2301 in the future. ;)

Racer said:
Jemiba:
I would say that the canards would be more downwards. Refer to first pic in tread. Otherwise you would shoot your canards with you rockets on inboard station.
Click to expand...

Quite hard to say, what I deduced from the model photos and the sketch, the canards wouldn't protrude
very much below the bottom of the fuselage. The sidewinder would clear the canards easily and the objects
on the inner hardpoints are ASW torpedoes, to my opinion. But I agree, that this detail certainly is one of the
MANY weak spots in this drawing. ;)
 
I was just musing about the canards. It is hard to tell from the available information how much the canards canted in a hover (to alleviate the download forward). Assuming the axial pivot was at the center of the canard even with a more aggressive angle they would still have run the risk of forward firing weapons on the aft mounted wings. I only point this out because it appears that this layout is the one also pitched to the Army as a "Hind-like" airframe able to able to be an Air Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
I imagine someone pointed that out to Sikorsky. Besides it is far to radical a design for Army Aviation. X2 will be alright because there is still a whirly thing on the tail ... even if it is ninety degrees out of whack.
 
yasotay said:
... even with a more aggressive angle they would still have run the risk of forward firing weapons on the aft mounted wings.
Click to expand...

Were over wing mounted pylons/weapons, as in the SEPECAT Jaguar or EE Lightning F.53 ever considered for a helicopter ?
Or were they at least an option ?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom