• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Sikorsky X2 family

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
TomS said:
There are no major components common between the 53K and 53E. They even managed to expand the cabin. Hard to see how it is not a new helicopter. The limitations that remain are mainly to do with the need to fit in an LHD hangar.
I would be astonished if there were anything other than standard fasteners, sealant, etc. that were common between the two. Structurally they are completely different.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
29
TomS said:
There are no major components common between the 53K and 53E. They even managed to expand the cabin. Hard to see how it is not a new helicopter. The limitations that remain are mainly to do with the need to fit in an LHD hangar.
and the tail rotor assists lift and forward motion how then? It is still called a 53.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
jsport said:
TomS said:
There are no major components common between the 53K and 53E. They even managed to expand the cabin. Hard to see how it is not a new helicopter. The limitations that remain are mainly to do with the need to fit in an LHD hangar.
and the tail rotor assists lift and forward motion how then? It is still called a 53.
A Super Hornet is called an 18. Do you think an F/A-18C is the same as an F/A-18E?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
jsport said:
and the tail rotor assists lift and forward motion how then? It is still called a 53.
Don't confuse the issue. The K is a new helicopter. It's not revolutionary, but the current state of the art wasn't ready to produce a revolutionary helicopter of this size now, when it is needed. The Marines can't wait to replace the Es until something like a heavy-lift X2 might be possible (Assuming it ever will be worth the effort. If the smaller X2 designs are any guide, the installed power in a heavy lift version would be massive.)
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
29
jsport said:
F-14D said:
It's worth remembering that a year or two ago that Sikorsky itself said that X2 technology wouldn't scale up to the heavy lift category. If one looks back over this and similar topics, you'll see the discussions about the space needed for the mast and transmission it is apparent why they would say this.

Even if that situation didn't exist, any FVL heavy wouldn't come on line for at least another 20 years. USMC has to have something a lot sooner than that, as do other potential customers. So the timeframe alone dictates that CH-53K (which is a new helicopter that only has the shape of the earlier CH-53).
Understand the K is a quite radical improvement, but believe it is stretching it to call it new and serious inefficiencies are not eliminated. Something like x2 is new but yes it seems not on the horizon. Again the gov is going to have to assume the risk of any tangible improvement.
Understand the K is a quite radical improvement, but believe it is stretching it to call it new and serious inefficiencies are not eliminated. Something like x2 is new but yes it seems not on the horizon. Again the gov is going to have to assume the risk of any tangible improvement.

ditto and ditto again
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
jsport said:
Understand the K is a quite radical improvement, but believe it is stretching it to call it new.
That's because you're not familiar with either the E or K. Sorry to be blunt but there's no other way to put it. "Touchy feely" subjective opinion isn't what determines what is "new". The fact that it is completely different is what does. Doesn't matter if the design still has "deficiencies" or if it's even worse than the previous iteration. It is completely different, built to a NEW design, and therefore it is new. If you wish to continue to wallow in ignorance that's obviously your prerogative. Just don't be surprised when people continue to correct you.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
10
sferrin has it exactly right. It's called a 53K for similar reasons why the Super Bug is called the -18E/F. It makes the program more slable if you call it a modification rather than a new start.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
29
jsport said:
TomS said:
There are no major components common between the 53K and 53E. They even managed to expand the cabin. Hard to see how it is not a new helicopter. The limitations that remain are mainly to do with the need to fit in an LHD hangar.
and the tail rotor assists lift and forward motion how then? It is still called a 53.
and the tail rotor assists lift and forward motion how then? It is still called a 53. and its still not carry light tanks either.

ditto and ditto again.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,995
Reaction score
84
Brilliant pictures! Thank You. Hoping to see the Demonstrator in its new digs in the coming weeks.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
198
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Published on Apr 10, 2017

Designed for speed, maneuverability and scalability, X2 Technology™ is the foundation for Lockheed Martin’s support to Future Vertical Lift. Sikorsky has invested in and proven X2 Technology™ to illustrate its commitment to developing future capabilities that are achievable and affordable for both military and commercial applications. Learn more: http://lmt.co/2o0OJQK

https://youtu.be/8iIdPbLNItU
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
198
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Sikorsky's new product search narrows to concepts over 5t"
28 February, 2018 SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com BY: Stephen Trimble Las Vegas

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sikorskys-new-product-search-narrows-to-concepts-ov-446309/

Sikorsky’s ongoing pursuit of its next civil rotorcraft has narrowed to concepts in a size class over 4.5t (10,000lb), further distancing the Lockheed Martin company from the light helicopter market after it disposed of the Schweizer brand earlier this year.

The sizing strategy is driven by Sikorsky’s view that its resources and skills are best applied to large and complex rotorcraft systems, says Dana Fiatarone, Sikorsky’s vice-president of commercial systems and services.

“We’re probably going to be north of 10,000lb in the development programme,” Fiatarone says, speaking to journalists on 27 February.

Market stagnation has stifled new product launches in the commercial helicopter industry for several years, but companies are continuing to make investments in anticipation of an eventual recovery.

Bell chief executive Mitch Snyder acknowledged an ongoing development project for a new commercial aircraft during his press conference at the Heli-Expo convention, but declined to provide any details.

Sikorsky has indicated its interest in replacing or supplementing its two flagship commercial products – the 5t-class S-76 and 12t S-92 – for several years. But Fiatarone says that Sikorsky refuses to launch a “me-too” product for the commercial market, meaning that the company wants to look beyond conventional helicopter approaches to speed and cockpit automation. This is a comment that has been often heard from executives in recent times.

For a decade, the company has been developing high-speed rotorcraft for the military, designed around a coaxial rotor system with a pusher propeller for forward thrust – beginning with the Collier Trophy-winning X2 demonstrator.

“I would expect us to take a look at that. I like the idea of X2 technology,” Fiatarone says. “I can see us having a conversation where it makes sense to have some type of that technology going forward.”

Meanwhile, Sikorsky continues to work on the X2’s successors for the military – the S-97 Raider prototype and a collaboration with Boeing on the SB-1 Defiant.

Sikorsky expects to have the S-97 Raider back in flight testing in late March or early April, following a hard landing last year that damaged a prototype aircraft, Sikorsky chief executive Dan Schultz says. The SB-1 was originally scheduled to fly last year as part of a demonstration for the US Army, but remains in assembly with no announced timeline for first flight.

Sikorsky still has a “bunch of things left to do with Boeing”, Schultz says, without elaborating. The company is also waiting for a gearbox delivery from Northstar, he adds. “We’re still not there yet.[\quote]
 

turboshaft

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
sferrin said:
China doesn't copy. You take that back.
My apologies. "Radical new Chinese copy & pasta VUAS concept with entirely groundbreaking intellectual property unveiled at Zhuhai this week, clearly superior to based on the S-97's, whose original and now clearly copyright-impinging 6-blade MR / 5-blade proprotor configuration was preemptively ditched for what is clearly a far inferior 8-blade MR / 6-blade proprotor configuration. We apologize for the fault in the previous post. Those responsible have been sacked."
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
904
Reaction score
45
The landing gear looks like the one from DARPA for landing operation on uneven terrain.

 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
turboshaft said:
sferrin said:
China doesn't copy. You take that back.
My apologies. "Radical new Chinese copy & pasta VUAS concept with entirely groundbreaking intellectual property unveiled at Zhuhai this week, clearly superior to based on the S-97's, whose original and now clearly copyright-impinging 6-blade MR / 5-blade proprotor configuration was preemptively ditched for what is clearly a far inferior 8-blade MR / 6-blade proprotor configuration. We apologize for the fault in the previous post. Those responsible have been sacked."
Much more acceptable. ;)
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
159
The landing gear looks like the one from DARPA for landing operation on uneven terrain.

Looking at that gear, there goes the mission payload...

First time I have seen a helicopter work out and loosen up before the mission! :)

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Last edited:

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,995
Reaction score
84
Georgia Tech is also working on a similar concept.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
223
Georgia Tech is also working on a similar concept.
That's the same DARPA robotic landing gear program. They work on a grant from agency.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,995
Reaction score
84
As seen at the Georgia Tech booth at Army Aviation meeting. Wonder how much of the useful load it takes up?
 

Attachments

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
29
As seen at the Georgia Tech booth at Army Aviation meeting. Wonder how much of the useful load it takes up?
is something in particular going on w/ that strange landing gear?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,007
Reaction score
198
Primarily intended for mountainous terrain and the like, I believe.
 
Top