User Panel
Quoted:
Essentially, yes. Pitch reduction in the main rotor, as well as reduced RRPM will reduce the onset of retreating blade stall. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
As they transistion to more forward speed via the push prop, will they be able to cut power to the lift rotors and maintain altitude like a gyrocopter? Essentially, yes. Pitch reduction in the main rotor, as well as reduced RRPM will reduce the onset of retreating blade stall. Cool... step along the road to stop-rotor tech? |
|
Quoted:
Wouldn't the fact that there are counter rotating main rotors negate the problem of retreating blade stall? You would always have blades on either side providing lift. In any case I bet this turns out to be a great bird precisely because it's not being developed as part of a government program. Private innovation FTW! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As they transistion to more forward speed via the push prop, will they be able to cut power to the lift rotors and maintain altitude like a gyrocopter? Essentially, yes. Pitch reduction in the main rotor, as well as reduced RRPM will reduce the onset of retreating blade stall. Wouldn't the fact that there are counter rotating main rotors negate the problem of retreating blade stall? You would always have blades on either side providing lift. In any case I bet this turns out to be a great bird precisely because it's not being developed as part of a government program. Private innovation FTW! At some airspeed you are going to stall the retreating blade on any rotary wing aircraft. On a coax helicopter it just happens symmetrically, and you can usually do it and live, unlike on a conventional single rotor helicopter. |
|
Eh, retreating blade stall in a conventional helicopter is a self correcting problem. The aircraft will pitch up and roll, slowing itself down.
|
|
|
Quoted: I am a huge fan of Sikorsky. I have ridden in the H-60 Coast Guard model many times in weather in Alaska that grounded all other aircraft. It wasn't fun but we always made it. Igor Sikorsky was a hell of a designer from what I know of him. Just to show you how badass a Sikorsky helicopter is, I give you the following excerpt from a Coast Guard memo. "As an example of this helicopter's effectiveness, on December 2000 a dramatic rescue took place 200 miles off the coast of Virginia. The cruise liner SeaBreaze I suffered an engine failure during a storm and soon began taking on water. One US Coast Guard HH-60J Jayhawk helicopter rescued 26 crewmembers." That aircrew stuffed 26 people in one of these things and safely flew them back. http://www.aviastar.org/foto/sik_s-70-sea_1.jpg View Quote Then they went HH-65 and if they rescued 2 people...the rescue swimmer would have to remain on scene until they could drop off the patients and return for the RS. I always wondered about the wisdom of that decision. |
|
Quoted:
You'd probably have to do some sort of competition. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
If I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense, I'd make the Army buy this. You'd probably have to do some sort of competition. coming from you thats hiilarious. how do you think the marines got stuck with the osprey? SECNAV ordered them to buy it, no matter how much it cost, no matter how long it took. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am a huge fan of Sikorsky. I have ridden in the H-60 Coast Guard model many times in weather in Alaska that grounded all other aircraft. It wasn't fun but we always made it. Igor Sikorsky was a hell of a designer from what I know of him. Just to show you how badass a Sikorsky helicopter is, I give you the following excerpt from a Coast Guard memo. "As an example of this helicopter's effectiveness, on December 2000 a dramatic rescue took place 200 miles off the coast of Virginia. The cruise liner SeaBreaze I suffered an engine failure during a storm and soon began taking on water. One US Coast Guard HH-60J Jayhawk helicopter rescued 26 crewmembers." That aircrew stuffed 26 people in one of these things and safely flew them back. http://www.aviastar.org/foto/sik_s-70-sea_1.jpg Holy clown car. Dude, gobs of power in a 60 L/M. You cube out before you max out with pax. helps that being coasties they were working at sea level. |
|
Quoted:
Oh damn, I missed that post. I wish he would tell me what helicopters the Russians do better than us. Seriously. The only one with a single argument is the MI26, since its the king daddy of all of them. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SAMs, Helicopters, light machine guns, these are all things that Russia does better than anyone in the world. Do you even SM-6, bro? Oh damn, I missed that post. I wish he would tell me what helicopters the Russians do better than us. Seriously. The only one with a single argument is the MI26, since its the king daddy of all of them. fly for cheap maintenance/flight hour ratios. we were paying Mi-17s to fly logistics for us. it was cheaper to rent an airframe and pilots plus pay for maintenance and fuel then it was to fly one of ours at maintenance/fuel only. |
|
No. Russian MX is one thing. MX done to our standards is another. The Mi17 fleet at Rucker is super expensive to run.
They do not make better helicopters than anyone. They just make more of them. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Then they went HH-65 and if they rescued 2 people...the rescue swimmer would have to remain on scene until they could drop off the patients and return for the RS. I always wondered about the wisdom of that decision. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I am a huge fan of Sikorsky. I have ridden in the H-60 Coast Guard model many times in weather in Alaska that grounded all other aircraft. It wasn't fun but we always made it. Igor Sikorsky was a hell of a designer from what I know of him. Just to show you how badass a Sikorsky helicopter is, I give you the following excerpt from a Coast Guard memo. "As an example of this helicopter's effectiveness, on December 2000 a dramatic rescue took place 200 miles off the coast of Virginia. The cruise liner SeaBreaze I suffered an engine failure during a storm and soon began taking on water. One US Coast Guard HH-60J Jayhawk helicopter rescued 26 crewmembers." That aircrew stuffed 26 people in one of these things and safely flew them back. http://www.aviastar.org/foto/sik_s-70-sea_1.jpg Then they went HH-65 and if they rescued 2 people...the rescue swimmer would have to remain on scene until they could drop off the patients and return for the RS. I always wondered about the wisdom of that decision. I could be wrong but I believe we had the 65 first then adopted the 60 also. Huge problems in the early days with the 65's, I still don't like them. Flew to 10K feet once in a 65 so a new crew member could earn a patch. We struggled to get that high. They keep the 65 cause it is the only thing that will fit on the ships for deployment, the 60's are too heavy for the deck on the CG cutters. |
|
Quoted:
Eh, retreating blade stall in a conventional helicopter is a self correcting problem. The aircraft will pitch up and roll, slowing itself down. View Quote In straight and level flight that's, essentially, true. A pilot has to ignore the increasing vibrations and still try to make it fly faster to get past the point where blade flapping can't compensate for the dissymmetry of lift anymore. But that's not when retreating blade stall is a significant problem (unless the pilot is a retard). Start high speed, high load maneuvering and it can be a problem that is, most definitely NOT, self correcting. Edit to add- I meant to say that it's cool to see the Raider prototype fly. They've got a long way to go but it's cool to see something resembling what it's supposed to be fly. Single engine too. My eventually to be Lakota flying ass is now laughing heartily. |
|
Quoted: A compound helicopter is much lower risk than a tilt rotor. For one thing it can auto-rotate. It doesn't need to rotate engines (and fuel, electrical power, hydraulics, control busses) every time it transitions from forward flight to a hover and back. It flies and acts just like any other coax helicopter, it just has a lot more speed in forward flight. Like I've said before, if not for the ridiculous transformer-like folding necessary on the V-22 it would be a much better airframe. Fuselage mounted engines with driveshafts to the gearboxes/proprotors would mean a lot less complexity. I'm the one defending the Osprey's record on here usually, not attacking it. I have friends with 10+ years of working on them that have told me horror stories about the maintenance requirements, and I'd bet that they would be a hell of a lot less onerous on the Raider or something like it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Lower risk than what? They had one concept (X-2) which flew about 20 hours, and this one has flown for one hour. It could turn out to be awesome, but it could turn out to be a nightmare. There are always unknowns. Is that really lower risk than something like the tilt-rotor which has been deployed to places like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Africa for nearly a decade? A compound helicopter is much lower risk than a tilt rotor. For one thing it can auto-rotate. It doesn't need to rotate engines (and fuel, electrical power, hydraulics, control busses) every time it transitions from forward flight to a hover and back. It flies and acts just like any other coax helicopter, it just has a lot more speed in forward flight. Like I've said before, if not for the ridiculous transformer-like folding necessary on the V-22 it would be a much better airframe. Fuselage mounted engines with driveshafts to the gearboxes/proprotors would mean a lot less complexity. I'm the one defending the Osprey's record on here usually, not attacking it. I have friends with 10+ years of working on them that have told me horror stories about the maintenance requirements, and I'd bet that they would be a hell of a lot less onerous on the Raider or something like it. Don't look at the V-22 and assume all tilt-rotors will have the same design features or the same limitations. The V-22 doesn't autorotate, but the 609 does. And if you look at the V-280, it does not rotate engines or fold up like a V-22. We did do a UAV tilt-rotor with a single engine in the center, and it was pretty simple, but the design wouldn't be practical for something carrying people and would be more complicated with two engines. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I also think you're under-estimating the challenges of a compound helicopter. If a compound that "just has a lot more speed in forward flight" was so simple and low risk, it wouldn't just now be a new thing, it would have taken off when they first flew them in the '60s. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I've been into aviation since before I could walk, and as an engineer I love seeing new stuff like this. I can't wait to see how it performs. I just think you're underestimating the challenges of a compound, and applying inaccurate generalizations to tilt-rotors. |
|
Quoted:
Don't look at the V-22 and assume all tilt-rotors will have the same design features or the same limitations. The V-22 doesn't autorotate, but the 609 does. And if you look at the V-280, it does not rotate engines or fold up like a V-22. We did do a UAV tilt-rotor with a single engine in the center, and it was pretty simple, but the design wouldn't be practical for something carrying people and would be more complicated with two engines.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I also think you're under-estimating the challenges of a compound helicopter. If a compound that "just has a lot more speed in forward flight" was so simple and low risk, it wouldn't just now be a new thing, it would have taken off when they first flew them in the '60s.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I've been into aviation since before I could walk, and as an engineer I love seeing new stuff like this. I can't wait to see how it performs. I just think you're underestimating the challenges of a compound, and applying inaccurate generalizations to tilt-rotors. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lower risk than what? They had one concept (X-2) which flew about 20 hours, and this one has flown for one hour. It could turn out to be awesome, but it could turn out to be a nightmare. There are always unknowns. Is that really lower risk than something like the tilt-rotor which has been deployed to places like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Africa for nearly a decade? A compound helicopter is much lower risk than a tilt rotor. For one thing it can auto-rotate. It doesn't need to rotate engines (and fuel, electrical power, hydraulics, control busses) every time it transitions from forward flight to a hover and back. It flies and acts just like any other coax helicopter, it just has a lot more speed in forward flight. Like I've said before, if not for the ridiculous transformer-like folding necessary on the V-22 it would be a much better airframe. Fuselage mounted engines with driveshafts to the gearboxes/proprotors would mean a lot less complexity. I'm the one defending the Osprey's record on here usually, not attacking it. I have friends with 10+ years of working on them that have told me horror stories about the maintenance requirements, and I'd bet that they would be a hell of a lot less onerous on the Raider or something like it. Don't look at the V-22 and assume all tilt-rotors will have the same design features or the same limitations. The V-22 doesn't autorotate, but the 609 does. And if you look at the V-280, it does not rotate engines or fold up like a V-22. We did do a UAV tilt-rotor with a single engine in the center, and it was pretty simple, but the design wouldn't be practical for something carrying people and would be more complicated with two engines.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I also think you're under-estimating the challenges of a compound helicopter. If a compound that "just has a lot more speed in forward flight" was so simple and low risk, it wouldn't just now be a new thing, it would have taken off when they first flew them in the '60s.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I've been into aviation since before I could walk, and as an engineer I love seeing new stuff like this. I can't wait to see how it performs. I just think you're underestimating the challenges of a compound, and applying inaccurate generalizations to tilt-rotors. What compound coaxial helicopter flew in the 60s? A non-coax compound like Commanche is a whole different beast with a different set of problems. The fact that we can now build rigid rotor heads and use fly by wire in helicopters is new, and that's what makes something like the X2 or Raider more feasible. I don't see that it's much a technological challenge though, honestly. I wasn't convinced they'd get the speed out of the X2 they promised, but they did. |
|
Quoted: coming from you thats hiilarious. how do you think the marines got stuck with the osprey? SECNAV ordered them to buy it, no matter how much it cost, no matter how long it took. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense, I'd make the Army buy this. You'd probably have to do some sort of competition. coming from you thats hiilarious. how do you think the marines got stuck with the osprey? SECNAV ordered them to buy it, no matter how much it cost, no matter how long it took. |
|
Quoted: I could be wrong but I believe we had the 65 first then adopted the 60 also. Huge problems in the early days with the 65's, I still don't like them. Flew to 10K feet once in a 65 so a new crew member could earn a patch. We struggled to get that high. They keep the 65 cause it is the only thing that will fit on the ships for deployment, the 60's are too heavy for the deck on the CG cutters. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am a huge fan of Sikorsky. I have ridden in the H-60 Coast Guard model many times in weather in Alaska that grounded all other aircraft. It wasn't fun but we always made it. Igor Sikorsky was a hell of a designer from what I know of him. Just to show you how badass a Sikorsky helicopter is, I give you the following excerpt from a Coast Guard memo. "As an example of this helicopter's effectiveness, on December 2000 a dramatic rescue took place 200 miles off the coast of Virginia. The cruise liner SeaBreaze I suffered an engine failure during a storm and soon began taking on water. One US Coast Guard HH-60J Jayhawk helicopter rescued 26 crewmembers." That aircrew stuffed 26 people in one of these things and safely flew them back. http://www.aviastar.org/foto/sik_s-70-sea_1.jpg Then they went HH-65 and if they rescued 2 people...the rescue swimmer would have to remain on scene until they could drop off the patients and return for the RS. I always wondered about the wisdom of that decision. I could be wrong but I believe we had the 65 first then adopted the 60 also. Huge problems in the early days with the 65's, I still don't like them. Flew to 10K feet once in a 65 so a new crew member could earn a patch. We struggled to get that high. They keep the 65 cause it is the only thing that will fit on the ships for deployment, the 60's are too heavy for the deck on the CG cutters. I can see the 65's utility for fitting on ships, but a lot of CGAS were using them for SAR missions. CGAS Astoria being one that used it in that role. Always struck me as a less than stellar choice when responding to a sinking ship an hour off the coast. 2 passengers and flight crew maxed it out. That might be plausible in tropical waters...but much less so in cold water. |
|
Quoted:
I was 4 when the RFP came out. I don't claim to know how those decisions were made back then. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense, I'd make the Army buy this. You'd probably have to do some sort of competition. coming from you thats hiilarious. how do you think the marines got stuck with the osprey? SECNAV ordered them to buy it, no matter how much it cost, no matter how long it took. You should read The Dream Machine. Its an interesting insight not just into the Osprey, but DoD procurement in general. |
|
Quoted:
You should read The Dream Machine. Its an interesting insight not just into the Osprey, but DoD procurement in general. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense, I'd make the Army buy this. You'd probably have to do some sort of competition. coming from you thats hiilarious. how do you think the marines got stuck with the osprey? SECNAV ordered them to buy it, no matter how much it cost, no matter how long it took. You should read The Dream Machine. Its an interesting insight not just into the Osprey, but DoD procurement in general. $12.99 for the kindle version? WTF? Somebody who knows how to bilk money out of suckers wrote that one. |
|
Quoted:
In straight and level flight that's, essentially, true. A pilot has to ignore the increasing vibrations and still try to make it fly faster to get past the point where blade flapping can't compensate for the dissymmetry of lift anymore. But that's not when retreating blade stall is a significant problem (unless the pilot is a retard). Start high speed, high load maneuvering and it can be a problem that is, most definitely NOT, self correcting. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Eh, retreating blade stall in a conventional helicopter is a self correcting problem. The aircraft will pitch up and roll, slowing itself down. In straight and level flight that's, essentially, true. A pilot has to ignore the increasing vibrations and still try to make it fly faster to get past the point where blade flapping can't compensate for the dissymmetry of lift anymore. But that's not when retreating blade stall is a significant problem (unless the pilot is a retard). Start high speed, high load maneuvering and it can be a problem that is, most definitely NOT, self correcting. Hey, I was leaving out the boring details As for single engine, yea, I think that is funny too. Want to know the weirdest thing about the Raider by FAR? It has a centrally mounted collective. One collective. To share. |
|
View Quote There is absolutely no comparison between the Cheyenne and the Raider. Completely different aircraft |
|
Quoted:
Russia's already got one and it's tail fin doesn't need to be upside down either. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Russian_Air_Force_Kamov_Ka-50.jpg View Quote Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing like the feeling of seeing something you worked on, especially a prototype or a fist aircraft, taking to the sky for the first time. I had that opportunity working with Sikorsky on the S92 program in Coatesville, PA (the first aircraft entirely built at that facility). Same for me - I helped start the layout for the tech pubs on this bird before I left |
|
Quoted:
That's...odd. I guess it's no more weird than centrally mounted throttles, like most fixed wing aircraft have. Well except for having to use the cyclic with your left hand from the left seat. ETA: The mockup has something..different. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eh, retreating blade stall in a conventional helicopter is a self correcting problem. The aircraft will pitch up and roll, slowing itself down. In straight and level flight that's, essentially, true. A pilot has to ignore the increasing vibrations and still try to make it fly faster to get past the point where blade flapping can't compensate for the dissymmetry of lift anymore. But that's not when retreating blade stall is a significant problem (unless the pilot is a retard). Start high speed, high load maneuvering and it can be a problem that is, most definitely NOT, self correcting. Hey, I was leaving out the boring details As for single engine, yea, I think that is funny too. Want to know the weirdest thing about the Raider by FAR? It has a centrally mounted collective. One collective. To share. That's...odd. I guess it's no more weird than centrally mounted throttles, like most fixed wing aircraft have. Well except for having to use the cyclic with your left hand from the left seat. ETA: The mockup has something..different. I went to a brief by JSOC and by Sikorsky. Central collective. I tell you this: I wouldnt want to share shit. Shows how small the cockpit is. |
|
Quoted:
I went to a brief by JSOC and by Sikorsky. Central collective. I tell you this: I wouldnt want to share shit. Shows how small the cockpit is. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eh, retreating blade stall in a conventional helicopter is a self correcting problem. The aircraft will pitch up and roll, slowing itself down. In straight and level flight that's, essentially, true. A pilot has to ignore the increasing vibrations and still try to make it fly faster to get past the point where blade flapping can't compensate for the dissymmetry of lift anymore. But that's not when retreating blade stall is a significant problem (unless the pilot is a retard). Start high speed, high load maneuvering and it can be a problem that is, most definitely NOT, self correcting. Hey, I was leaving out the boring details As for single engine, yea, I think that is funny too. Want to know the weirdest thing about the Raider by FAR? It has a centrally mounted collective. One collective. To share. That's...odd. I guess it's no more weird than centrally mounted throttles, like most fixed wing aircraft have. Well except for having to use the cyclic with your left hand from the left seat. ETA: The mockup has something..different. I went to a brief by JSOC and by Sikorsky. Central collective. I tell you this: I wouldnt want to share shit. Shows how small the cockpit is. I figured it was due to tiny size, I'm guessing the cyclic is a sidestick like the mockup's? |
|
Yea, its a sidestick. All FBW. I believe the Bell 280 valor is also sidestick. If its FBW, you can make it friggen playstation controller if you want.
|
|
Quoted:
Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia's already got one and it's tail fin doesn't need to be upside down either. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Russian_Air_Force_Kamov_Ka-50.jpg Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. |
|
Speed is everything, especially the increase in range it provides.
|
|
Quoted:
please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia's already got one and it's tail fin doesn't need to be upside down either. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Russian_Air_Force_Kamov_Ka-50.jpg Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. A lot of wounded soldiers would have survived their transport to the nearest medical facility. A dustoff that's 50-100 knots faster than the current version is no trivial advantage. |
|
Quoted:
A lot of wounded soldiers would have survived their transport to the nearest medical facility. A dustoff that's 50-100 knots faster than the current version is no trivial advantage. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia's already got one and it's tail fin doesn't need to be upside down either. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Russian_Air_Force_Kamov_Ka-50.jpg Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. A lot of wounded soldiers would have survived their transport to the nearest medical facility. A dustoff that's 50-100 knots faster than the current version is no trivial advantage. It's possible the helos involved in Red Wings might not have been shot down, as their escorts could have kept up. |
|
Quoted:
A lot of wounded soldiers would have survived their transport to the nearest medical facility. A dustoff that's 50-100 knots faster than the current version is no trivial advantage. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia's already got one and it's tail fin doesn't need to be upside down either. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Russian_Air_Force_Kamov_Ka-50.jpg Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. A lot of wounded soldiers would have survived their transport to the nearest medical facility. A dustoff that's 50-100 knots faster than the current version is no trivial advantage. Where are the primary delays in casualty evacuation? Is it really an aircraft speed issue? |
|
Quoted:
Where are the primary delays in casualty evacuation? Is it really an aircraft speed issue? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia's already got one and it's tail fin doesn't need to be upside down either. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Russian_Air_Force_Kamov_Ka-50.jpg Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. A lot of wounded soldiers would have survived their transport to the nearest medical facility. A dustoff that's 50-100 knots faster than the current version is no trivial advantage. Where are the primary delays in casualty evacuation? Is it really an aircraft speed issue? Yes, especially in Afghanistan. It's a big place and an hour transit each way vs, 30 or 40 minutes is a big damn difference. This article covers it. We dramatically increased the number of helicopters and built more medical facilities. Neither would be necessary with faster, longer legged, rotary wing aircraft. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-12-09-medevacs-in-Afghanistan_N.htm |
|
Quoted:
Where are the primary delays in casualty evacuation? Is it really an aircraft speed issue? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia's already got one and it's tail fin doesn't need to be upside down either. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Russian_Air_Force_Kamov_Ka-50.jpg Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. A lot of wounded soldiers would have survived their transport to the nearest medical facility. A dustoff that's 50-100 knots faster than the current version is no trivial advantage. Where are the primary delays in casualty evacuation? Is it really an aircraft speed issue? Not really. There are niche areas where it does matter. 7000 KIA in the past 14 years. maybe a difference for 10 dudes. Which not to discount, but are we going to spend 200 billion dollars to completely revamp a helo fleet. marines did that. I was promised osprey was a "game changer" but I haven't seen the game change. |
|
Speed is distance. Distance is coverage. I can never imagine wanting to fly slower.
The UK Chinook MERT teams fly routinely at 160kts, VNE, to get casualties to hospitals. Imagine if that was 240kts.... |
|
Quoted:
Yes, especially in Afghanistan. It's a big place and an hour transit each way vs, 30 or 40 minutes is a big damn difference. View Quote Until you have less available due to higher cost and higher maintenance requirements. we abandon mass for exquisite technologies. Universal PGMs is a game changer. but we haven't changed the game by vastly reducing the number of aircraft we procure. we still seek a 1 for 1 exchange when you should have a 10-1 reduction in requirements. faster speed is a nice to have ability, it isn't a "game changer" maybe with A2A, which we essentially have stopped doing because the fastest jet isn't faster than a missile. |
|
|
Quoted:
So do we cut the fleet in half to buy that capability? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Speed is distance. Distance is coverage. I can never imagine wanting to fly slower. The UK Chinook MERT teams fly routinely at 160kts, VNE, to get casualties to hospitals. Imagine if that was 240kts.... So do we cut the fleet in half to buy that capability? Eh, this Raider is just a concept. It is not the blackhawk/Apache replacement. This is sized to replace the MELB/AAS. |
|
I am all for SOCOM having small fleets of amazing aircraft. What concerns me is the idea of doing bulk replacements in the GP forces of hideously expensive concepts that promise to be "game changers" when they aren't. In fact, they often turn out to be net detriments to the mission.
|
|
I can see how an upsized version of this would be an effective replacement of the hawk fleet.
Then again, if it were up to me, I would buy a CH47F for every 2 hawks we have and be done with it. |
|
Quoted:
please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia's already got one and it's tail fin doesn't need to be upside down either. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Russian_Air_Force_Kamov_Ka-50.jpg Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. Inter theater transport by rotary wing forces is much faster more responsive and efficient in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
Quoted:
I am all for SOCOM having small fleets of amazing aircraft. What concerns me is the idea of doing bulk replacements in the GP forces of hideously expensive concepts that promise to be "game changers" when they aren't. In fact, they often turn out to be net detriments to the mission. View Quote I don't see anything raider based being "hideously expensive". Lockmart and Boeing aren't involved. |
|
Quoted:
Inter theater transport by rotary wing forces is much faster more responsive and efficient in Iraq and Afghanistan. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia's already got one and it's tail fin doesn't need to be upside down either. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Russian_Air_Force_Kamov_Ka-50.jpg Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. Inter theater transport by rotary wing forces is much faster more responsive and efficient in Iraq and Afghanistan. so? they were responsive (if available) as is. You are changing a planning factor. How is that a "game changer" You still have an aircraft faster than ground vehicles, slower than fixed wing, that has VTOL capability. Same size carries the same amount. the approval and planning times dwarf the transport times by orders of magnitude. so you are changing a variable in the planning. at great cost. |
|
Quoted:
so? they were responsive (if available) as is. You are changing a planning factor. How is that a "game changer" You still have an aircraft faster than ground vehicles, slower than fixed wing, that has VTOL capability. Same size carries the same amount. the approval and planning times dwarf the transport times by orders of magnitude. so you are changing a variable in the planning. at great cost. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia's already got one and it's tail fin doesn't need to be upside down either. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Russian_Air_Force_Kamov_Ka-50.jpg Again this Raider is nothing like it. The Raider is a game changer in helicopters - every major manufacturer is desperately playing 12+ years of catch-up with Sikorsky. The Raider is based off of the X2 demonstrator. This helicopter is orders of magnitude above anything currently out there. please explain how its a "game changer" Imagine every helicopter we had in 2001 was a "raider" or a derivative of its technology. Please tell me what would be different today. Inter theater transport by rotary wing forces is much faster more responsive and efficient in Iraq and Afghanistan. so? they were responsive (if available) as is. You are changing a planning factor. How is that a "game changer" You still have an aircraft faster than ground vehicles, slower than fixed wing, that has VTOL capability. Same size carries the same amount. the approval and planning times dwarf the transport times by orders of magnitude. so you are changing a variable in the planning. at great cost. If you need medevac or fire support for a TIC you'd rather have them 40 minutes away or 20? 20 or 10? Speed is important. Yes, I know all firefights you were ever in lasted 12 seconds, and if you didn't have a strategic bombardment wing overhead the second the first shot was fired you didn't have adequate CAS/CCA. |
|
you want to lecture me on MEDEVAC timelines? got a lot of experience with those, sport?
You are talking about one small piece of the aviation mission. Then you are further fractionating into the differentiation between flight time, warm up and the difference in staying alive in a 10-20 minute window over a 60 minute. If flight time was that important the AF would be talking about an Osprey replacement for CSAR and nothing else. Instead they went with MH-47s initially and are now looking at newer 60 variants. |
|
Quoted:
you want to lecture me on MEDEVAC timelines? got a lot of experience with those, sport? You are talking about one small piece of the aviation mission. Then you are further fractionating into the differentiation between flight time, warm up and the difference in staying alive in a 10-20 minute window over a 60 minute. If flight time was that important the AF would be talking about an Osprey replacement for CSAR and nothing else. Instead they went with MH-47s initially and are now looking at newer 60 variants. View Quote The reason we don't want Ospreys for CSAR has nothing to do with speed. We're buying M model blackhawks because it's all congress will allow without another decade of lawsuits. |
|
Quoted:
It has a clutch drive, and it is reversible as well. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
On this first flight, the aircraft’s rear pusher-propeller — which enables maximum speeds well in excess of those of conventional helicopters — was intentionally spinning but not engaged. It has a clutch drive, and it is reversible as well. Gonna be complicated to fly, though. Peddle to turn right, peddle to turn left, and now, a peddle for the clutch. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.