Sikorsky is setting records again

[Willy]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/05/sirkorsky-prototype-chopper-crushes-air-speed-record/?test=latestnews

Although I'm more into their old flying boats, they do build a good helicopter.

[Dain Arns]

"Double bladed"... :rolleyes:
I guess easier for the press to understand than counter rotating coaxial rotors. :icon_lol:

[stuartcox]

That's not a proper Helicopter!
Half plane, half gyrocopter with the pusher prop...and look at the size of the wings!
No, for me that doesn't count...!
Good concept though.

[Lionheart]

Very nice! Thanks for the heads up Willy.




That's not a proper Helicopter!
Half plane, half gyrocopter with the pusher prop...and look at the size of the wings!
No, for me that doesn't count...!
Good concept though.

stuartcox

So the rear prop makes it a plane? I see blue paint, I do not see wings. I could be mistaken though. The tail surface area in the back seems to be the only section that could be called a wing and I see those on Bell's and other choppers.

[Dain Arns]

Very nice! Thanks for the heads up Willy.
So the rear prop makes it a plane? I see blue paint, I do not see wings. I could be mistaken though. The tail surface area in the back seems to be the only section that could be called a wing and I see those on Bell's and other choppers.


You are correct, Bill.
It doesn't have wings, just a tail...

http://www.sikorsky.com/Innovation/Vision+of+the+future/Technologies/X2+Technology

I do believe it does unload the rotors at higher speeds.
The idea has some lineage back to the Lockheed Cheyenne AH-56A from the mid-60's...

http://www.internetage.com/cartercopters/pics9.htm

[Bjoern]

No, for me that doesn't count...!

Same here.

Coax rotors okay, but a pusher prop to boot? No way, José!

[Dain Arns]

Oh yeah?
Well when you all come up with a pusher prop airplane that can hold a hover, maybe I'll change my mind. :icon_lol:
In the mean time it's still a rotorcraft. ;)

[Cazzie]

I hope it is paid for with Sikorsky money.

I see very little utility in that other than purposely building it to break the speed record. Like stuart, I can't rightly call it a helicopter with that pusher prop, a hybrid maybe, heliplane perhaps. And it seats only two in a body that as far as I can see, will carry no stores. So much for its military application.

The counter rotating coaxial rotors eliminate the need for a stabilizer prop in the rear and allows the pusher prop.

Once again, American engineering going one step beyond for no other purpose than to break a record is all I see. Money that could be put to much better use in our crumbling nation.

Caz

[Dain Arns]

I hope it is paid for with Sikorsky money.

I see very little utility in that other than purposely building it to break the speed record. Like stuart, I can't rightly call it a helicopter with that pusher prop, a hybrid maybe, heliplane perhaps. And it seats only two in a body that as far as I can see, will carry no stores. So much for its military application.

The counter rotating coaxial rotors eliminate the need for a stabilizer prop in the rear and allows the pusher prop.

Once again, American engineering going one step beyond for no other purpose than to break a record is all I see. Money that could be put to much better use in our crumbling nation.

Caz

It's all out of Sikorsky's own pocket.

[Willy]

It strikes me as more of a technology demonstrator that will have practical uses in more developed models later on. Much like the X planes of the 40s and 50s without being on the government's nickel.

[Lionheart]

It strikes me as more of a technology demonstrator that will have practical uses in more developed models later on. Much like the X planes of the 40s and 50s without being on the government's nickel.


Thats what it looks like to me as well. Its too small, I think, for mainline military applications. I could be wrong.

Note how short the rotors are. Thats pretty wild. If it landed really hard (auto-gyro in on emergency), those blades being so close to the cabin might chop in. Usually they chop off the tails on hard impacts.

There was a helo like this in the 1970's, if I remember. It was cancelled. Nice looking bird.



My apologies on the remark of the prop. A helo is a helo, this is vertical take-off, but I could have worded that a bit more 'friendlier'.


Bill

[Dain Arns]

Thats what it looks like to me as well. Its too small, I think, for mainline military applications. I could be wrong.

Note how short the rotors are. Thats pretty wild. If it landed really hard (auto-gyro in on emergency), those blades being so close to the cabin might chop in. Usually they chop off the tails on hard impacts.

There was a helo like this in the 1970's, if I remember. It was cancelled. Nice looking bird.



My apologies on the remark of the prop. A helo is a helo, this is vertical take-off, but I could have worded that a bit more 'friendlier'.


Bill

I had put up a link for you back in post #5, Bill.

-----------------------------

It's a demonstrator.
Shows it can be done.
Years from now, think of the possibility of having a medevac helicopter that can get wounded troops back to a hospital twice as fast?
God forbid we are still fighting a war somewhere, but I think that's technology 'worth' exploring...

[stuartcox]

Very nice! Thanks for the heads up Willy.





So the rear prop makes it a plane? I see blue paint, I do not see wings. I could be mistaken though. The tail surface area in the back seems to be the only section that could be called a wing and I see those on Bell's and other choppers.

Having looked at the picture again, I admit you are right!
It was the upper painted stripe that gave the impression of being a "wing". :salute:

[Ken Stallings]

I must say I am a bit surprised by some of the negative reactions to this helicopter.

The lift is produced by the rotors. By strict definition, therefore, this makes it a rotorcraft and in terms of at least FAA rules, that means it fits the definition of helicopter.

Yes it augments thrust with the pusher prop, but this isn't the first example of that. As has been mentioned, the Commanche did that decades earlier and was a very fast helicopter. But, the Army decided to cancel that program.

Ultimately, it reset the speed mark on helicopters and by a fairly wide improvement. That's very significant.

I also see lots of practical applications in the future. Speed has many values. Whether it translates into practical applications is to be seen. But on pure achievement, it has already done something very positive.

Cheers,

Ken

[Allen]

I must say I am a bit surprised by some of the negative reactions to this helicopter.

Cheers,

Ken

↑his

[Bjoern]

As has been mentioned, the Commanche did that decades earlier and was a very fast helicopter. But, the Army decided to cancel that program.

You mean Cheyenne.

The Comanche was a "classical" configuration...and totally awesome.
There could have been some great use for it, even in low-tech conflicts like Afghanistan.

And now it's rotting away. *Grr*

[Ken Stallings]

You mean Cheyenne.

The Comanche was a "classical" configuration...and totally awesome.
There could have been some great use for it, even in low-tech conflicts like Afghanistan.

And now it's rotting away. *Grr*

Yep, you are right as rain! I should have said Cheyenne vice Commanche! They were the same in the sense the Army cancelled both programs. I personally think the Army figured they could just continue using the Apache's vice spend the moola on the Commanche.

Anyway, it is important to be accurate, so thanks for setting me right on this.

Cheers,

Ken

[Bjoern]

Yep, you are right as rain! I should have said Cheyenne vice Commanche! They were the same in the sense the Army cancelled both programs. I personally think the Army figured they could just continue using the Apache's vice spend the moola on the Commanche.

Anyway, it is important to be accurate, so thanks for setting me right on this.

No biggie Ken! Happens to everyone. ;)