As a Sikorsky Aircraft employee, I am very proud and excited, this is an amazing aircraft and it represents the future of vertical lift. Go Lockheed Matin Corp. ! 🇺🇸👍🇺🇸
It's funny when he says "It's very smooth and stable". Yeah. I'm sure the COMPUTER is smooth and stable. And such gorgeous weather he was "flying" in. I'm sure he didn't have so much as a 5 knot crosswind.
I presume this is a SAC with rate-command/attitude-hold mode, hover translation mode, and other flight modes like ADOCS and Comanche had? I've never heard the phrase "unique trim" on the side stick. I've previously heard that rc/ah mode referred to as "trim update" or "dynamic trim".
The Cheyenne had a tail rotor and conventional rotors. That comparison is like saying a F4 Phantom is equivalent to an F22 because it's equally fast and has two engines. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
would rather see a ducted fan instead of massive rear wing and control surfaces. Ducted fan would increase top speed and achieve better slow speed maneuverability. Rear wing design seems antiquated for cost cutting purposes.
Doesn't need a ducted fan, since the coaxial rotors counter their own torque. At speed, the tail assembly provides much better yaw control, since it can exert more force than a fan or tail rotor
The Kaman Huskie used intermeshing rotor technology. Both are designed to eliminate the need for an anti-torque tail rotor, but different approaches to the same problem.
Nem tanto, se pensarmos que ele estará operacional somente em 2030, Acho um conceito velho para 2030, esperava algo mais moderno, assim como um militar de alta patente disse quando viu tanto esse projeto como o Valor da textron
Yeah, I'd like to see you bank a real chopper in a hover and see if it stays airborne. As the lift spills off the high side, you will slice right into the ground with the low side. Try it. You'll see what I means.
The SB-1 is based on the X-2 technology, the S-97 is already flying and the systems that will go into the SB-1 are already developed and well understood technology compared to what's going into the V-280. A tiltrotor has some fundamental problems that make it less utilitarian than a helicopter, higher disk loading in hover mode than a helicopter and higher prop drag in forward flight than an airplane, increased vulnerability to vortex ring state which limits decent speed in hover mode compared to a helicopter and a 70mph downwash from the proprotors while hovering. And just try carrying an M-1 around as a sling load on a tiltrotor and see what happens. They are useful in their own right but they are absolutely NOT a replacement for a real helicopter. The ideal situation would be that the Army gets a lot of the SB-1 and a smaller number of V-280s to cover everything but that's not going to happen. If they have to choose one or the other and make the decision purely based on the facts with no political bullshit or bribery behind the scenes they will almost certainly choose the more utilitarian of the two and that will be the helicopter.
I predict that at some point, the rear prop will malfunction and cause an accident, then the military will no longer allow the use of it until further notice, leading to the prop being removed and stored. Then we will have a counter-rotating aircraft without any of the perks of the tail prop for years to come.
Um...Sikorsky Aircraft designed an experimental coaxial rotors helicopter since 1970's but US military was not interested. Also Gyrodyne Company of America designed coaxial rotors drone helicopter for US Navy in 1950's. More than that coaxial rotors design pre-exist Kamov company itself...so...no one is copying anyone....
Junk, old design from WW2 days. The rotors will eat themselves up. Maintenance will be a nightmare and costs will go through the roof. Pilots will get confused flying that thing they can hardly fly a 64 safety. Now you want them to fly a heli plane thing that doesn’t even fly like anything we know. You might as well strap some seats and a gun to the wing of an F 35 , yell CAV and call it a day.
