Sikorsky X2 family

Title:Rotary wing aircraft
United States Patent D665720

Inventors:
Stille, Brandon L. (Cheshire, CT, US)
Devito, Ashley (Newtown, CT, US)
Hein, Benjamin Reed (Milford, CT, US)
Lauder, Timothy Fred (Oxford, CT, US)
Boyle, Patrick (New Haven, CT, US)
Alber, Mark R. (Milford, CT, US)
Eadie, William J. (Cheshire, CT, US)

Application Number:
D/410676

Publication Date:
08/21/2012

Filing Date:
01/11/2012

Assignee:
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Stratford, CT, US)

Primary Class:
D12/326

International Classes:
(IPC1-7): 1207

Field of Search:
D12/327, D12/326, D12/328, D12/329, 244/17.11, 244/17.19, 244/17.23, 244/17.25, 74/522, 416/114, D23/377, D21/827, D21/583, D21/558, D21/453, D21/442


Source:
http://www.google.de/patents/USD665720
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D665720.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D665720.pdf
 

Attachments

  • USD0665720-20120821-D00000.png
    USD0665720-20120821-D00000.png
    60.2 KB · Views: 740
  • USD0665720-20120821-D00001.png
    USD0665720-20120821-D00001.png
    37.2 KB · Views: 704
  • USD0665720-20120821-D00002.png
    USD0665720-20120821-D00002.png
    30.9 KB · Views: 677
  • USD0665720-20120821-D00003.png
    USD0665720-20120821-D00003.png
    36 KB · Views: 652
  • USD0665720-20120821-D00005.png
    USD0665720-20120821-D00005.png
    39.4 KB · Views: 641
Thanks a lot Triton for sharing these patents in such a clear and efficient way!
 
X2 might have a shot at Army's Aerial Scout after all, or AAS might just become another "might have been" program.

Given what the Army was willing to look at, off-the-shelf-flying now, to evaluate where they wanted to go, X2 seemed to be out of the running. Too risky, and not available in time. However, the Army recently discussed the results of their evaluation. Lt. Gen. William Phillips,acquisition adviser to the secretary of the Army, stated that, “...we didn't find a single aircraft that was out there that could meet the Army's requirements...". So that essentially means that Army is going to either have to go to a development program, or just stay with the OH-58D.

If the former, this seems to open the door for advanced technology. An AAS is arguably a bit too small for a Tilt-Rotor. If the S-97 demonstrator can show that X2 technology is "safe", it might have the inside track. Not too sure about AVX. Since they haven't actually ever delivered an aircraft, they might be perceived as too risky.

...or they could just kick the can down the road and just SLEP existing OH-58s.
 
I vote for kicking the can down the road. The US Army being a ground combat centric organization will naturally want to draw in around its core missions, I think. That said if all of the sudden in 2016 there is a advanced compound helicopter that meets all of the requirements and is competitively priced, well maybe the Dept of Defense can afford some change from the new bomber and 6th gen fighter efforts to let the poor bloody infantry have a new scout helicopter. Me I doubt it.

I do think that this is exactly the right technology for the scout mission. Able to operate low and slow with agility and with the ability to dash far better than any other helicopter. It can back up and do maneuvers that other scout helicopters would break doing. Most importantly NO TAIL ROTOR! Historically the bane of scout helicopters. The only bad news, from my perspective, is that it is relatively short legged, especially I bet, when it is going fast. Even with that supposition, an assumption that a scout helicopter would operate as part of the ground force might make this particular problem less noted.
 
It'd also be great for civilian SAR missions - the speed would cover more territory and the power would help in poor weather.
 
The S-97 really is a slick machine, however I was shocked to see how much power it requires and to see that the entire rear of the machine is essentially taken up by engine and transmission. I guess at 250kts hanging the engines on the outside is simply not an option.
As a result, all the payload is forward of the rotor. How does Sikorsky plan to accomodate cg travel? Do they simply accept a trim penalty?
 
A large chunk of that space is transmission. Accomodating dual, counter-rotating rotors makes for a very large and bulky transmission.

With Bell now building all new OH-58 cabins and actively testing newer and more powerful engines (more than one option here, too), a SLEP or CILOP effort wouldn't be that bad, coming on top of the existing improvements of the OH-58F.
 
As Yasotay says "let the poor bloody infantry have a new scout helicopter", but minus that, at least a few w/ higher performance creatures like X2 ( air refuelable :)..sikorsky vids at least highlight for other Sikorsky X2 family) for SOAR..if the 58 upgrades is all the Army gets as it is kicked down the road in more ways than one.
 
elmayerle said:
A large chunk of that space is transmission. Accomodating dual, counter-rotating rotors makes for a very large and bulky transmission.

With Bell now building all new OH-58 cabins and actively testing newer and more powerful engines (more than one option here, too), a SLEP or CILOP effort wouldn't be that bad, coming on top of the existing improvements of the OH-58F.
None of which deals with any of the problems that have existed for twenty years.
 
The likeliness of a large military contract for the S-97 is still fragile.

Sikorsky had better not put all their eggs in one basket and continue to reinforce their commercial sales, otherwise they may end up in a difficult dead end.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
The likeliness of a large military contract for the S-97 is still fragile.

Sikorsky had better not put all their eggs in one basket and continue to reinforce their commercial sales, otherwise they may end up in a difficult dead end.
No doubt, but with a huge backlog on H-60, S-76 still selling well and even S-90 starting to make some numbers, of all of the rotorcraft houses I think they are in the best position to have disposable income to push with.
 
AeroFranz said:
The S-97 really is a slick machine...
Are you referring to the PR photos or the actual design? From what little I saw before my contract to work at Stratford ended, the reality is not as aesthetically appealing as the PR concepts and mockup.
 
elmayerle said:
the reality is not as aesthetically appealing as the PR concepts and mockup.

It hardly ever is... Think of the Comanche in the PR material and in prototype form for instance...
 
elmayerle said:
AeroFranz said:
The S-97 really is a slick machine...
Are you referring to the PR photos or the actual design? From what little I saw before my contract to work at Stratford ended, the reality is not as aesthetically appealing as the PR concepts and mockup.
Thats how us pilots know that an aircraft is real. When it goes from the "ohh slick" pictures to the warts and bumps of reality.
 
Judging the way other companies are launching new types, I'm still surprised, that Sikorsky had chosen to
design the S-97 from a clean sheet of paper, not reusing for example the cockpit section of, say, the
S-70 or maybe S-76. Would have saved money, I think, and may be even have signaled "look, there
are well-known components in it, not really that risky !".
(Hacksawed pictures from http://wp.scn.ru/ )
 

Attachments

  • Raider.jpg
    Raider.jpg
    226.9 KB · Views: 837
Jemiba said:
Judging the way other companies are launching new types, I'm still surprised, that Sikorsky had chosen to
design the S-97 from a clean sheet of paper, not reusing for example the cockpit section of, say, the
S-70 or maybe S-76. Would have saved money, I think, and may be even have signaled "look, there
are well-known components in it, not really that risky !".
(Hacksawed pictures from http://wp.scn.ru/ )

Wasn't Sikorsky forced to start with a clean sheet because none of its existing helicopter planforms was suitable for an Advanced Aerial Scout? Aren't the S-70 and S-76 cockpit sections too wide and tall for the Sikorsky S-97 Raider/AAS proposal by Sikorsky? Wouldn't an S-76-based scout helicopter be considered too large by the United States Army?
 
Using the cabin section wouldn't mean to base it on that type, just to use one component,
saving development costs.
If you compare the sizes of that part of the S-76, it is very near to the S-97, I think.
Could reduce the basic price to be announced. If later a modification is wanted by the customer,
it could be "hidden" more easily . ;)
 
yasotay said:
elmayerle said:
AeroFranz said:
The S-97 really is a slick machine...
Are you referring to the PR photos or the actual design? From what little I saw before my contract to work at Stratford ended, the reality is not as aesthetically appealing as the PR concepts and mockup.
Thats how us pilots know that an aircraft is real. When it goes from the "ohh slick" pictures to the warts and bumps of reality.


There are several changes from the mockup, most notably in the cockpit area. I have some insights into the structural design and there are some neat, very large unitary composite panels that make up the structure.
There are other things that leave me perplexed, however, like the terribly complicated retractable landing gear, the inter-rotor fairing that has to de-spin in order to remain aligned with the flow, and both the amount of installed power and the size of volume the powerplant takes up in the vehicle. It just makes you realize that the higher speed comes at a very real price. That being said, it's a very realistic approach to the problem and a very strong runner in the upcoming competitions.
 
AeroFranz said:
yasotay said:
elmayerle said:
AeroFranz said:
The S-97 really is a slick machine...
Are you referring to the PR photos or the actual design? From what little I saw before my contract to work at Stratford ended, the reality is not as aesthetically appealing as the PR concepts and mockup.
Thats how us pilots know that an aircraft is real. When it goes from the "ohh slick" pictures to the warts and bumps of reality.


There are several changes from the mockup, most notably in the cockpit area. I have some insights into the structural design and there are some neat, very large unitary composite panels that make up the structure.
There are other things that leave me perplexed, however, like the terribly complicated retractable landing gear, the inter-rotor fairing that has to de-spin in order to remain aligned with the flow, and both the amount of installed power and the size of volume the powerplant takes up in the vehicle. It just makes you realize that the higher speed comes at a very real price. That being said, it's a very realistic approach to the problem and a very strong runner in the upcoming competitions.
While I think I understand the reason for going to the tail-dragger landing gear layout, I too was somewhat surprised at the complexity of the landing gear for a "light rotorcraft". I would not have thought that something that complex would have bought its way into the design. Of course with the very stringent crash atiunuation criteria they designed to it may have been the only way to get to that point. Another area that I will be interested to see is the size of the vibration dampining systems attached to the transmission. As I remember the vibratoin loads were excessive on the XH-59, and re-watching the video of the X-2 going to 250 knots the vibration loads apparent in the cockpit seemed high. I have been very curious why they pulled back at 260 knots when they claim to have still had a good power margin and prop pitch remaining.
 
A couple of points, they no longer are using an active despin method for the inter rotor fairing. As to the reason why they did not go further in the X2 program, it was all about where to invest your resources. They could have continued to explore the flight envelope of an aircraft that was just a proof of concept, or they could get started on the S-97 Raider. Having achieved all they desired with the X2, they went on to develop the Raider. There are some pretty neat things in the craft. The rotor blades are massively stiff for their size.
 
Well I for one am very much looking forward to the day the S-97 flies. I certainly understand a decision to call it a day with the fantastic results, but to intimate that there was still a lot of performance left... I think there is going to be some BIG expectations levied against the S-97.
I wonder if it makes toast? ;D
 
Speed is only one part of the concept of the S97 Raider. The ability to maneuver at speed is also part of the performance advantage. Also the pusher prop allows the helicopter to maintain higher angles of attack for the fuselage while hovering.
 
Aeroengineer1 said:
Speed is only one part of the concept of the S97 Raider. The ability to maneuver at speed is also part of the performance advantage. Also the pusher prop allows the helicopter to maintain higher angles of attack for the fuselage while hovering.

This is something that was demonstrated on the Cheyenne as well. Also, it helps on slope landings/departures. The pusher on he S-97 will apparently be variable pitch, but does anyone know if it'll go into Beta? On the one hand, that'll give it greater agility and also safety on downslope landings. On the other hand, it does add a measure of complexity, and since this would in theory also enable an X2 to dive bomb, this could incur the wrath of the Air Force.
 
F-14D said:
Aeroengineer1 said:
Speed is only one part of the concept of the S97 Raider. The ability to maneuver at speed is also part of the performance advantage. Also the pusher prop allows the helicopter to maintain higher angles of attack for the fuselage while hovering.

This is something that was demonstrated on the Cheyenne as well. Also, it helps on slope landings/departures. The pusher on he S-97 will apparently be variable pitch, but does anyone kno if it'll go into Beta? O nt the one hand, that'll give it greater agility and also safety on downslope landings. On the other hand, it does add a measure of ocmplexity, and since this wold in theory also an ABC to dive bomb, this could incur the wrath of the Air Force.
I don't know if it will go into Beta, but even just going to flat pitch is going to be a great decelerator. I will be that it has some Beta capability.
 
Artist's impression of Sikorsky X2 aerial crane. (larger version of previously posted image)

Source:
http://www.helicopassion.com/fr/03/wbl313.htm
 

Attachments

  • X2-01h.jpg
    X2-01h.jpg
    389.9 KB · Views: 395
"Sikorsky S-97 Raider begins final assembly"
by Aaron Mehta

Source:
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130923/NEWS04/309230020/Sikorsky-S-97-Raider-begins-final-assembly

WASHINGTON — Sikorsky will begin final assembly of its S-97 Raider helicopter prototype this week, according to company officials.

That puts the helicopter manufacturer — which is competing for the Army’s Armed Aerial Scout program — on track for a first flight at the end of 2014.

“It’s just a really exciting foundational milestone for us, and it’s great to be leaving the design phase of Raider and getting into the build phase,” Chris Van Buiten, Sikorsky Innovations vice president, said.

The Raider is based on the X-2 technology developed by Sikorsky in the late 2000s, but grows the size and weight significantly. Where the X-2 demonstrator was a one-person, 5,000-pound platform, the Raider will be roughly 11,000 pounds with room for six troops in its combat assault mode. In reconnaissance mode, that space could be used for extra equipment or ammunition.

Despite that growth, Sikorsky executives are confident the design will bring a mix of speed and maneuverability that helicopters have not yet achieved.

“This thing has to fly faster than 220 knots” at cruising speed, Van Buiten said when asked about key performance targets. “It has got to do more than a 3G turn at speed. It has to demonstrate hover at 10,000 feet and 95 degrees. Those are the non-negotiables.”

The fuselage, assembled by Aurora Flight Sciences in a West Virginia facility, arrived at Sikorsky’s West Palm Beach, Fla., facility Sept. 20. A composite airframe, the fuselage has been tested to tolerate bird strikes at 230 knots and has shown very low drag, according to the company.

The Armed Aerial Scout program aims to replace the Army’s fleet of OH-58 Kiowa Warriors, in use since the late 1960s. The winner of the program is expected to last well past 2050, meaning the competition would be a long-term windfall for the winner.

Army officials visited with competitors AgustaWestland, Boeing, EADS and Bell Helicopter during the summer of 2012, but the top acquisition adviser to the secretary of the Army told a congressional hearing in May that “we didn’t find a single aircraft that was out there that could meet the Army’s requirements.”

Sikorsky is confident is can fill that role — assuming the replacement program can get funding.

As with all programs in the Pentagon, the Armed Aerial Scout is facing budget challenges. Speaking Sept. 19 on the Hill, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno indicated the program is at risk if sequestration continues.

“In the event sequestration-level discretionary caps continue into FY14, we will assume significant risk in our combat vehicle development,” Odierno said. “In our aviation program, we cannot afford to procure a new Armed Aerial Scout program and we will be forced to reduce the production and modernization of 25 helicopters.”

Despite such warnings, Sikorsky remains confident the Army will find the money to fund the program, according to Steve Engebretson, the company’s Advanced Military Programs director.

“It’s a tough financial environment, but the fact Odierno highlighted this program reflects the level of importance the Army has in that mission,” he said. “To me, it’s at least a sign that if there is a way the Army can get that program going, they will find a way to do that.”

“We understand the climate we’re operating in,” added Van Buiten. “We’re committed to demonstrating this technology, but we understand the customer has a lot of priorities to balance. Our job is to open up the aperture of what’s possible with them.”

Both men can be sanguine, in part, because the development of the Raider has been entirely funded by Sikorsky and its industry partners. While the S-97 is being designed with Armed Aerial Scout in mind, it will also serve as a test bed for further X-2 technologies, which could then go onto future Sikorsky products. Additionally, the company sees the Raider as a demonstrator for a larger machine that would fit the Army’s Joint Multi-Role helicopter replacement program for the service’s Blackhawk fleet.

In other words, the company sees ways to recoup its investment in the prototype even if the program never comes through. That company investment is a point of pride for Van Buiten, whose team was responsible for the design and creation of the Raider.

“We’ve created this innovations group, and one of our charters is to demonstrate differentiating technology that creates competitive advantages for us or all new capability for our customers,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of using traditional timelines and budgets to do it.”

If the project continues on target, the Raider prototype’s first flight will take place roughly 48 months after its clean-sheet design, a much faster pace than the defense industry normally sees. While costs are not set, the company has estimated it could produce the platform in production quantities for as little as $15 million a copy, including mission system packages.

There is also a potential international market for the technology through the Foreign Military Sales program. The company has been in contact with “several very close allies of the US” about the technology, Engebretson said.

While declining to name which countries might be interested, he said the “international interest roughly equals the quantities the U.S. government is thinking about, in the hundreds.”

The Sikorsky S-97 Raider fuselage prior to departure from Aurora Flight Sciences in West Virginia last week.

Larger image later
 
Source:
http://kunststoffverarbeitung.blogspot.com/2012/01/sikorsky-helikopter-s-97-wird-mit.html
 

Attachments

  • s-97-raider-helicopter-sikorsky--2-.jpg
    s-97-raider-helicopter-sikorsky--2-.jpg
    34.7 KB · Views: 668
Sikorsky has been radio silent concerning X2 Program Updates since it partnered with Boeing for JMR/FVL Medium. The photo from Aurora Flight Sciences of the S-97 prototype fuselage confirm that it will look like the most recent concept artwork out of Sikorsky.
 
"Picture: Sikorsky's Raider Breaks Cover"
Posted by Graham Warwick 9:56 PM on Sep 26, 2013

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:10aec5ea-4fc1-4064-b3b1-2b2e45240381
Sikorsky has begun final assembly of the first S-97 Raider light tactical helicopter following delivery of the single-piece, all-composite fuselage by Aurora Flight Sciences.

Two industry funded prototypes of the high-speed, coaxial-rotor helicopter will be a built and flown at Sikorsky's West Palm Beach, Florida, test center. The first Raider is scheduled to fly at the end of 2014. One will be used for tests, the other for demonstrations.

Powered by a single General Electric YT706 engine from the special-operations MH-60M Black Hawk, the Raider is being aimed at the US Army's Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) requirement, with Sikorsky saying it can build the aircraft for the $15 million unit cost the Army has budgeted.

The Army has not yet decided what to do about its long-standing, star-crossed armed scout requirement (remember the Boeing Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche, and Bell ARH-70 Arapaho?). It could extend the service life of the Bell OH-58D/F Kiowa Warrior (odds-on favorite) or have a competition for a replacement.

A competition would most likely pit the Raider against EADS North America's AAS-72X/X+ (armed scout derivative of the UH-72A Lakota light utility helicopter, aka the commercial Eurocopter EC145). Cost and risk are therefore big factors, and why Sikorsky and its suppiers are spending around $200 million on two prototypes (and why EADS has three AAS-72X tech demonstrators flying).

Sikorsky is pushing for a competition, but not too soon as it wants the Raider to be flying before the Army makes its downselect. And for good reason, as this 11,000lb helicopter will do things no other can, because of its speed, rigid-rotor agility, coaxial-rotor efficiency, high power-to-weight ratio and aft propulsor (both needed for speed). But they have to hit that $15 million mark.
 
Stealthy Sikorsky S-97 Raider?

Source:
http://theaviationist.com/2013/09/24/s-97-mh-x-comparison/comment-page-1/#.UkU15BBjPYQ
 

Attachments

  • Raider.jpg
    Raider.jpg
    254.4 KB · Views: 495
Funny !

"...a loose similarity with the MH-X Stealth Blackhawk"

"Most probably the MH-X (whose shape remains unknown) is different from the S-97"

What's the author trying to tell us with his comparison between the Raider and the "Stealth Hawk",
whose appearance still is unknown ? ::)
 
They both look like helicopters? That's about the extent of the similarities I see -- the S-97 has no sharp edges, no edge alignment, no sawtooth panels, etc. Even if we assumed the notional MH-X drawing was accurate (it almost certainly isn't in detail) there's no significant resemblance that woudn't also apply to 90% of modern military transport helicopters.
 
Agreed. It's just like people who say that cars all look the same or aircraft all look the same because they are streamlined, have four wings and have a boot (trunk) at the rear... A fast helicopter will be pointy at the front, no doubt about it. But not faceted. There needs to be a lot more to even begin to establish a worthwhile comparison... especially since all we have on the MH-X is a tail...
 
I guess it is highly unlikely that the Sikorsky S-97 Raider has stealth features after the cancellation of the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche, but I thought that I would present this idea for discussion.
 
There is no stealth built into the S-97. Several reasons. 1. With two contra-rotating rotors on top and a propellor in back in another plane completely, I do not think there is any way to hide this aircraft from modern radar systems, other than to put granite between you and the radar beam. 2. They are trying to sell them at $15M, US a piece. 3. To my knowledge there has been no request for a stealthy helicopter (good luck getting that past a sceptical Congress that has no money). 4. Sikorsky developed it on its own dime. With past experience with stealthy helicopters still a fresh wound, I doubt they would even try.
The only stealthy claim that Sikorsky is making is that it will be a more quiet rotorcraft. I will skeptically wait to see if that works out.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom