Sikorsky X2 family

Triton said:
If the Sikorsky S-97 Raider prototype is deemed to be too large for aerial scout, would Sikorsky continue work on this X2 concept?

index.php

If they have a customer willing to pay for the development and funding of the aircraft
 
yasotay said:
If they have a customer willing to pay for the development and funding of the aircraft

I guess it would be too much to presume that Sikorsky would self-fund the development of two X2 helicopter prototypes.
 
Triton said:
I guess it would be too much to presume that Sikorsky would self-fund the development of two X2 helicopter prototypes.

Well they DID self-fund the X2 prototype a few years ago, didn't they?
They also self-funded the Cypher, the S-92, the S-76 and a few more...
If a thriving company doesn't take the chance to invest in R&D, they will have little chance of keeping their edge on a crowded market.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Triton said:
I guess it would be too much to presume that Sikorsky would self-fund the development of two X2 helicopter prototypes.

Well they DID self-fund the X2 prototype a few years ago, didn't they?
They also self-funded the Cypher, the S-92, the S-76 and a few more...
If a thriving company doesn't take the chance to invest in R&D, they will have little chance of keeping their edge on a crowded market.

Not too sure that S-92 and s-76 are good examples. Both of them are commercial products (with the former developed from the S-70/H-60). Except for loans, who else but the company itself usually funds the development of commercial products?

The X2 was a important venture to demonstrate the technology has advanced since the XH-59. The S-97 is vital to demonstrate that the technology is practical. They had to build it. Frankly, for what it would cost a customer, they wouldn't want to go much smaller if they're looking for any kind of commercial derivative. S-97 is going to give them everything they need data-wise. Dimension-wise except maybe for height, it doesn't look like S-97's size is out of line compared to other AAS contenders. The big difference is weight.

Given S-97 is going to exist, there isn't much value in Sikorsky developing two smaller prototypes for military sales unless as Yasotay says, someone is willing to fund it. In exports, with rare exceptions, everyone wants to be the second force to buy something totally new. Commercially, the rather conservative market wants to see concepts already operating before they plunk down large cash. Remember, Chief Pilots don't buy airplanes, accountants and managers do. Point being that if S-97 is rejected out of hand for AAS (assuming there ever actually is an AAS), Sikorsky would likely want to see that there's an actual chance for a successful bid of a smaller X2. If so, they'd want see some actual money to go further (like partial funding for flyoff. I do expect to see a corporately decked out S-97 doing what the X3 did. If successful, that might lead to a self-funded effort, like the BB BA AB AW-609, but actual orders/options would need to materialize for them to go into flight test.
 
Hopefully FAA certification process won't be as painful as is for the BB BA AB AW-609.
 
It probably depends on whether there is demand in the civilian marketplace for a rotorcraft that offers the increased speed and range capabilities of X2 Technology. We have seen from the briefings that Sikorsky is considering introducing X2 Technology to the commercial helicopter market and that the technology is scalable. I guess the real question is will Sikorsky introduce a range of commercial X2 Technology rotorcraft without development being underwritten by the United States Army with a program similar to the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) or FVL-Medium.
 
yasotay said:
Hopefully FAA certification process won't be as painful as is for the BB BA AB AW-609.

The FAA certification process is always painful. In fact it's reached the point that in some cases it costs more to go through the process than it does to develop the airplane! FAA is finally looking at modifying it's process because industry has been yelling at them saying that this is the big reason you don't see more innovation, and there are actually a few in DC that are getting a glimmer of understanding of this.

A case in point is the introduction of glass cockpits, for good or ill, to regular general aviation aircraft. This stalled for many years because FAA was insisting that they had to demonstrate the level of redundancy and reliability of the ones already in use in airliners. The manufacturers said if they have to that reliable and jump through all those hoops, general aviation couldn't afford it except at the very highest levels, so they (the manufacturers) weren't going to bother. What they were able to convince the FAA was that it doesn't need to be as good as what the airlines have, it just has to be better than what's already in airplane cockpits. Once FAA bought that, the innovation exploded.

So there's a glimmer of hope on the airframe side as well.

X2 should have a somewhat easier time of it than the 609 if Sikorsky can convince the FAA it's just a fast helicopter. Then it's just a mater of how such a vehicle would fit into the airspace system. With Tilt-Rotor, it was a whole new concept for which there were no precedents. The next one (and AW is talking about that already) should be easier.
 
I hadn't considered the innovation killing Federal Aviation Administration and their certification process. Probably not many sales for Sikorsky if the X2 Technology rotorcraft are in the Experimental Aircraft category.
 
Triton said:
I hadn't considered the innovation killing Federal Aviation Administration and their certification process. Probably not many sales for Sikorsky if the X2 Technology rotorcraft are in the Experimental Aircraft category.

The X2 demonstrator and any civil registered S-97 demonstrator would fall into the Experimental Aircraft category, but I can't conceive that even the FAA would restrict any design for commercial use to that category. The key will be how many (expensive) hoops they'd put it through and how expensive it would be. I'm sure Sikorsky would argue that it's just a helicopter with a prop in the back.

The areas the FAA will consider different are that, and the ABC mechanism/transmission itself. That's what they haven't seen before and could prove the most problematic.
 
Model of Sikorsky/Boeing SB-1 Defiant at AUSA 2013.

Source:
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/new-helicopter-designs-ive-seen-at-the-assoc-of-the-us-army-convention.453458183/
 

Attachments

  • 20131022sikorskydefiantsbgt1_zps1c12bb5f.jpg
    20131022sikorskydefiantsbgt1_zps1c12bb5f.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 412
Model of Sikorsky X2 attack concept on display at Heli-Expo 2010.

Source:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/heliexpo/photos5/
 

Attachments

  • rwhe69.3.3.10SikorskyX2model.jpg
    rwhe69.3.3.10SikorskyX2model.jpg
    12 KB · Views: 352
Civil Sikorsky X2 concept

Source:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=video.playVideo&videoid=f60d7e95-5329-4ce4-8c75-6b909930dc48
 

Attachments

  • 526x297-oMK.jpg
    526x297-oMK.jpg
    16.3 KB · Views: 336
Artist's impression of Sikorsky X2 concept circa 2007.

Source:
http://defense-update.com/events/2007/summary/mdm07_vertical.htm
 

Attachments

  • x2_assault.jpg
    x2_assault.jpg
    14.9 KB · Views: 284
F-14D said:
At risk of once again doing my impression of a broken record, note how this pre ~2009 concept shows the mast over the main cabin.

It somehow looks like stitched together, using a conventional heli and X2 details, not as a concept,
but as an illustration what an ABC vehicle could look like.
 
F-14D said:
At risk of once again doing my impression of a broken record, note how this pre ~2009 concept shows the mast over the main cabin.

Could the movement of the mast have something to do with Sikorsky's Active Vibration Control (AVC) technology and the X2 coaxial rotor system?
 

Attachments

  • innov_X2_b.jpg
    innov_X2_b.jpg
    33.5 KB · Views: 489
Triton said:
I wonder if Sikorsky will continue its work with Variable Diameter Tiltrotor (VDTR) in FVL-Heavy and FVL-Ultra.
Doubtful. There is little interest or money for it.
 
Triton said:
F-14D said:
At risk of once again doing my impression of a broken record, note how this pre ~2009 concept shows the mast over the main cabin.

Could the movement of the mast have something to do with Sikorsky's Active Vibration Control (AVC) technology and the X2 coaxial rotor system?
It is my belieft that is exactly why they moved it aft, along with the transmisson being larger than they originally anticipated.
 
Jemiba said:
F-14D said:
At risk of once again doing my impression of a broken record, note how this pre ~2009 concept shows the mast over the main cabin.

It somehow looks like stitched together, using a conventional heli and X2 details, not as a concept,
but as an illustration what an ABC vehicle could look like.

...exactly what I thought.
 
yasotay said:
Triton said:
F-14D said:
At risk of once again doing my impression of a broken record, note how this pre ~2009 concept shows the mast over the main cabin.

Could the movement of the mast have something to do with Sikorsky's Active Vibration Control (AVC) technology and the X2 coaxial rotor system?
It is my belieft that is exactly why they moved it aft, along with the transmisson being larger than they originally anticipated.

Not necessarily! There are other cabin design solutions available...think Bell212 ;)
 

Attachments

  • Bell 212.jpg
    Bell 212.jpg
    271.3 KB · Views: 410
A fair point, but if you are trying to maximize the available space in the compartment... If I recall correctly both Sikorsky and Boeing did significant work on transmission sizing during the UTTAS effort to keep the intrusion out of the cargo compartment.
 
Sikorsky has claimed that it can offer a "jet smooth" ride with its hub-mounted vibration suppression (HMVS) system for helicopters and that it intends to introduce this technology in all its products. Hopefully, Sikorsky can make similar "virtually zero-vibration environment" claims with Active Vibration Control (AVC), Quiet Zone™ transmission technology, and related technologies with X2 Technology.
 
VTOLicious said:
Not necessarily! There are other cabin design solutions available...think Bell212 ;)

That presumes that there would be any space left in the cabin after Sikorsky added the transmission and vibration control. ;)
 
Triton said:
Sikorsky has claimed that it can offer a "jet smooth" ride with its hub-mounted vibration suppression (HMVS) system for helicopters and that it intends to introduce this technology in all its products. Hopefully, Sikorsky can make similar "virtually zero-vibration environment" claims with Active Vibration Control (AVC), Quiet Zone™ transmission technology, and related technologies with X2 Technology.

I'm sure they can make that claim at ~180/200 knots, but if you look at the video of the speed record setting effort, the video from the cockpit at ~250 knots, the test pilot is getting rattled pretty well. To be sure it is a light airframe with current technology vibration dampening, but I think Sikorsky has a lot of work in front of them to get that ride at higher speeds people are asking for. If anyone can meet the challenge it is Sikorsky.

I also wonder what kind of loads that puts on the rotor mast. Between the natural torques of the opposing rotors and the vibration and counter-vibration there is going to be a lot of stresses on that hub. Maybe that is part of the reason they are putting the dynamics behind the cabin. Lots of moving parts.
 
It will be interesting to see the Sikorsky S-97 Raider being built over the coming year with the first flight planned late in 2014. Hopefully, our questions will be answered concerning X2 Technology and vibration control.
 
An interesting article concerning X2 Technology:

"Advanced rotor designs break conventional helicopter speed restrictions
A fast future awaits for rotorcraft with coaxial rotor systems and pusher propellers."
by Jay Chandler

Source:
http://www.propilotmag.com/archives/2012/September%2012/A3_Rotor_p1.html

Unfortunately, the article totally ignores the issue of vibration and vibration control.
 

Attachments

  • illustra.jpg
    illustra.jpg
    79.1 KB · Views: 209
Seems to be easily forgotten, that the ABC technology isn't something new and only
tested on the X2, but a principle, that already was used on the S-69 .
 
I believe this article from Flight International from 2007 is interesting for our discussion of X2 Technology:

"X2 marks the spot for radical rotor designs"
by John Croft
12 June 2007

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/x2-marks-the-spot-for-radical-rotor-designs-214533/

Sikorsky's X2 helicopter programme has a mixed R&D heritage, and could be the model for the next generation of rotorcraft designs

Along with broadening the realm of vertical lift, first flight of Sikorsky's internally funded X2 compound helicopter demonstrator in the fourth quarter this year will also spotlight what may become the best model for introducing new civil and military rotorcraft designs - do it yourself.

DIY models could become widespread in the US rotorcraft industry, with limited amounts of government funding available for research and development and demonstrator vehicles that showcase transformational technologies.

The US government continues to invest in the basic and applied research that helps manufacturers create breakthrough aircraft. However, the prime focus for most funding has become results-oriented incremental component or operational efficiency improvements to aid the US military on the battlefield.

Though the X2 concept is the result of much of that government-funded R&D, the demonstrator itself is 100% Sikorsky funded, and features a frugality and simplicity that reflects who is paying the bill. The aircraft is being built from numerous off-the-shelf components scavenged from near and far to keep costs low so much so that Peter Grant, Sikorsky advanced programmes manager, affectionately refers to the two-seater as a "mongrel". It uses dual rigid counter-rotating coaxial main rotors and a pusher propeller to reach cruise speeds of 250kt (462km/h), well beyond the 170kt maximum speed for conventional helicopters.

The X2 has a mixed heritage of government and industry R&D in rotor systems, propulsion, aerodynamics and controls technologies that will help it meet performance goals of high speed and "low" vibration - about the same vibration level as a traditional helicopter at its top speed of 140kt.

The X2's chief predecessor, the XH-59A advancing blade concept (ABC) helicopter, was built by Sikorsky and funded by the US Army, NASA, Sikorsky and others. Two vehicles were built and readied in two years, starting in 1971, a time when the US government funded such experimental aircraft.

The goal was to test the premise that rigid counter-rotating main rotors, where the advancing blade on each side produces lift while both retreated blades are feathered, could be used reduce drag and tip velocities to allow for cruise speeds well above the norm for helicopters. During testing from 1973 to 1977, Sikorsky pilots reached 240kt with the help of two fuel-thirsty auxiliary turbojets.

Though it was successful, the flight-test programme proved that the concept was ahead of its time because the technologies needed to solve key issues - high vibration levels, tedious mechanical control mechanisms and inefficient power management - have only recently become available. [Emphasis mine]

"We believe it now makes this configuration feasible for next generation helicopter flight," says Grant.

The maturation was due in large part to government-funded research on military contracts, among them the Boeing-Sikorsky Comanche advanced light attack helicopter, cancelled by the US military in 2004, and its precursor, the Shadow programme, an S-76 with fly-by-wire (FBW) flight controls. Both provided the knowledge base for the X2's flight controls.

The means to control vibrations came partly from the military-funded UH-60M Black Hawk upgrade programme. Coaxial rotor design expertise came partly from the Cypher programme, a vertical takeoff and landing unmanned air vehicle demonstrator that Sikorsky developed under a US Marine Corps contract.

Solving specific problem areas through directed research, rather than funding whole demonstrator aircraft, continues to be the R&D focus for the US government. Its research is largely provided by the US Army and NASA for basic and applied research, and the Defence Advanced Research and Projects Agency (DARPA) for long-term, high-risk and potentially lucrative projects.

NASA's civil programme

NASA is planning to spend more than $40 million a year for the next four years on rotorcraft research as part of its fundamental aeronautics programme, which has a budget of $890 million.

"We're doing a host of fundamental research geared towards improved utility of civil helicopters," says Juan Alonso, programme director at NASA.

The research includes a programme to reduce rotor tip speed at cruise by 50% from hover to boost speed and reduce noise. NASA is also developing advanced control system design tools, creating new structures that reduce interior noise and vibration, and developing new tools to validate and assess helicopter capabilities and predict behaviour.

US Army investment

The US Army is investing approximately $100 million annually in R&D. This is split between its research labs, and aviation and missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (RDEC). It is focusing most of its funds on applied technologies. The army's primary R&D areas for rotorcraft include mission systems, power and drives, operations support and sustainment, and systems concepts and analysis.

Given the continued conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, the army is naturally placing a premium on R&D that can lower the operating costs and improve the performance and safety of its helicopters. Projects within RDEC include efforts to reduce blade erosion from sand and preventing brown-out accidents through new cockpit technologies, a project the army is working on with DARPA.

The RDEC is involved in longer term projects as well, including an individual blade control (IBC) programme with Sikorsky to boost future helicopter performance, and decrease noise and vibration. Testing of a full size UH-60 blade with IBC will begin in August at the National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC) at NASA's Ames Research Centre, a windtunnel facility the army and air force now operate after NASA reduced its testing infrastructure in 2002.

When the IBC testing is finished in the autumn, the army will begin experimenting with a Boeing-built "smart" rotor that uses active flaps on the blade to control vibration and noise, says Barry Lakinsmith, acting director of the RDEC's Aeroflightdynamics directorate. Though progress is being made, Lakinsmith says active rotor control research in the USA lags behind that being done abroad.

"Europe's being more aggressive on full scale active rotors. It's been difficult for us to match that given the war fight," he says.

At the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL), research is more open-ended, and can be applied to helicopters as well as ground vehicles or missiles. The big driver within ARL's vehicle technology directorate (VTD) is the Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) programme, says Mark Nixon, VTD director.

JHL, on which the military recently completed a study phase by four vendors, including Sikorsky, calls for a range of vehicles that can lift as much as 26t of Future Combat System equipment, in some cases at high speeds.

Nixon's team of 80 employees working at two NASA centres has been focusing on the ultra lightweight but protective composite structures that such an aircraft would need to provide safe travel for troops as well as increased performance. The army says it might fund a demonstrator version of the JHL in the 2015 timeframe.

Rotorcraft industry advocates have said the R&D needed to realise the development of the JHL is underfunded by about a factor of 10. Most vocal has been Rhett Flater, executive director of the American Helicopter Society, who says a sustained investment of $2 billion a year for the next five to seven years is needed for basic research.

Nixon does not necessarily agree. "I can't say we're so under-funded we just won't get there," he says, noting that the required R&D will depend on the aircraft the military chooses. An entrant like Bell's quad tiltrotor JHL candidate, for example, should not require as much research as other candidates as much of the R&D work has already been accomplished on the V-22 Osprey programme, he says.

X2 joint heavylift

Many key foundation technologies for Sikorsky's JHL entrant, a much larger version of the X2, will be tested when the X2 demonstrator takes flight later this year. Included are active vibration control centralised around the transmission, a method designed to "short circuit vibrations at their origin", says Grant. Sikorsky currently uses distributed active vibration damping systems for its production helicopters.

Once first flight is completed, Grant says his goal will be to get to high speed flight as quickly as possible. The company plans four phases of flight tests, beginning with hover and low-speed work later this year, followed by phases 2 to 4 throughout next year.

For Sikorsky, the benefits of DIY would appear to outweigh the financial risks of going it alone.

"Early on, we wanted to do this independently," says Grant. "It's best for allowing it to proceed that much more quickly."

There's another advantage to 100% internal funding: "If it's important for Sikorsky's future, we want to keep it within the company," adds Grant.
 
Jemiba said:
Seems to be easily forgotten, that the ABC technology isn't something new and only
tested on the X2, but a principle, that already was used on the S-69 .

But Sikorsky X2 Technology is much more than just the Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) technology demonstrated on the experimental Sikorsky S-69 in 1973. X2 Technology is ABC combined with digital fly-by-wire controls, active vibration control technology, and fuselage and rotor blades constructed of composite materials. These supporting technologies needed to mature to make Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) practical. According to the Sikorsky Archives web site, the advancing blade concept had been shown in a textbook in the 1930s, but materials and techniques did not exist to construct the required rotor blades.

Source:
http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/S-69%20%28XH-59A%29.php
 
Larger photo of the Sikorsky S-97 Raider fuselage prior to departure from Aurora Flight Sciences.

Source:
http://www.tu.no/industri/2013/10/11/sikorsky-eksperiment-blir-til-kamphelikopter
 

Attachments

  • S-97_RAIDER_Fuselage.jpg
    S-97_RAIDER_Fuselage.jpg
    783.2 KB · Views: 594
Jemiba said:
Seems to be easily forgotten, that the ABC technology isn't something new and only
tested on the X2, but a principle, that already was used on the S-69 .

Not to mention the fact that coaxial helicopters are as old as the helicopter itself!
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Not to mention the fact that coaxial helicopters are as old as the helicopter itself!

Indeed, but for a conventional coaxial rotor the prblem of the retreating blade stall is the
same, so it really was ABC, that brought a break-through.
 
I think we need to make a distinction between experimental technology and technology that is mature enough to be implemented in a production rotorcraft. The Sikorsky S-69 (XH-59) demonstrated that Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) worked, but the technology was not feasible at that time to be implemented in a production rotorcraft. Experimental technology is promising, but it doesn't have much utility and it's pretty much useless technology. We can continue to nit-pick whether X2 Technology is "new" or whether the JMR program has given us anything "new", but it is new if rotorcraft are coming off the assembly line with X2 Technology that can be purchased and do useful work for a customer. We shouldn't be comparing the S-97 Raider prototype to experimental rotorcraft, but to current helicopters offered in the marketplace.

Remember that Sikorsky did not want to fund the XH-59B experimental rotorcraft which was Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) with a pusher propeller. X2 Technology seems more promising considering that Sikorsky is willing to spend $200 million of its own money to build two S-97 Raider prototypes in addition to the $50 million it has already paid to build the X2 Technology Demonstrator.
 

Attachments

  • S-69-11.jpg
    S-69-11.jpg
    22 KB · Views: 485
VTOLicious said:
yasotay said:
Triton said:
F-14D said:
At risk of once again doing my impression of a broken record, note how this pre ~2009 concept shows the mast over the main cabin.

Could the movement of the mast have something to do with Sikorsky's Active Vibration Control (AVC) technology and the X2 coaxial rotor system?
It is my belieft that is exactly why they moved it aft, along with the transmisson being larger than they originally anticipated.

Not necessarily! There are other cabin design solutions available...think Bell212 ;)

My question, though, would still be valid. If there are other solutions available, then why do all the concepts after ~2008-2009 show the mast being aft of the cabin, while prior to that they show the mast in the more flexible and compact location over the cabin.

I believe that Triton and Yasotay have nailed it. This would also explain why Sikorsky said earlier this year that the concept wouldn't scale up beyond medium size. Imagine a vehicle with the payload of a CH-53K or larger where the entire cabin was forward of the mast. Some interesting design problems there, not mention ingress/egress issues for larger or wheeled payloads.
 
To my opinion, what we saw prior to 2008/2009 were just concepts, that should show, what an artist
thought, that a heli with an ABC rotor and a pusher prop would look like. If you have a look at the second
picture here (#122) http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1062.msg101476.html#msg101476,
we have a conventional heli with just the tail rotor replaced by pusher prop. But such a prop is heavier, than a
tail rotor, needs much more power and so a much heavier transmission. On the other hand, what it doesnt
need, is a long momentum arm. So the heavier, but shorter tail makes the rotor look moved aft. But the rotor
still has to be at the CG, I think.
Soryy for spoiling good drawings from http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost:ca16a87f-ade6-47a4-a043-523bfbadb861
and http://bagera3005.deviantart.com/art/McDonnell-Douglas-AH-64-APACHE-99192101),
I just tried to sketch, what a "conventional" S-97 could look like, with a single rotor and a tail rotor.
 

Attachments

  • Raider_conventional.gif
    Raider_conventional.gif
    51.8 KB · Views: 429
Computer model of Sikorsky S-97 Raider.

Source:
http://www.indirvideo.net/sikorsky-s-97-raider-yeni-jenerasyon-helikopter-556396.html
 

Attachments

  • img-sikorskysraidereayenijenerasyonhelikopter-592.jpg
    img-sikorskysraidereayenijenerasyonhelikopter-592.jpg
    75.5 KB · Views: 386
Jemiba:

Yes, those were just artists' concepts, but a lot of them came from Sikorsky, so they should be considered representative of X2 thinking at the time. Looking at the pictures on the link you referenced, the only rotorcraft I see in the two pictures with a pusher prop are ABC vehicles, forerunner of X2 technology.

I don't think it's the shorter moment arm that makes the mast look like it was moved aft in current concepts, it is moved aft. I'm ignoring gunship applications because there the mast is usually behind the cockpit by design. Oh, wait a minute... there's the S-67 and Mi-24, but they both had cabins and the mast was over that.

I agree the rotor has to be at the cg, that's why I think the statements came out that X2 doesn't scale up to the heavier concepts. If you can't put the mast over the cabin because you need that space for vibration control or transmission, then it has to forward of the mast. To keep the cg within a reasonable distance of cL, you would therefore need something aft to offset the weight of said cabin, and that can become a problem as size of the vehicle grows.

In your sketch (much better than what I could do, BTW) all the space directly under the rotor is "wasted" space. If you just elevate the housing, you can gain that space back or alternatively move the whole assembly forward, gaining a more expanded cg and less offsetting weight aft which could result in a more compact vehicle.

It's sort of like with Tilt-Rotor, you can do things to partially offset the weight of the wings (more twist to the blades, etc.), but that weight is still gong to be there. The smaller the vehicle gets, the greater percentage of total weight the wings take up. That's why except for LHX which was a special case, it's not likely you're going to see anyone proposing a real small Tilt-Rotor.

I do think Yasotay and Triton have given me the answer to my question.
 
From JAZZ circa 2005

Source:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?43595-Sikorsky-X2
 

Attachments

  • US- Sikorsky Heavylift_2.jpg
    US- Sikorsky Heavylift_2.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 360
Artist's impression of Sikorsky X2 High Speed Lifter (X2HSL)

Source:
http://rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov/Publications/files/Johnson_NASA-lift-offset-Aug11_890.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky_X2HSL.jpg
    Sikorsky_X2HSL.jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 99

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom