A military complex commercial.

"Grindintosecond" (Grindintosecond) 09/17/2020 at 14:34 • Filed to: None

0

23

Well, a larger version of the S-97 that can run 250mph with a load of weapons seems like something we need. It is cool, for sure, and probably capable of a lot of things. Things they show you in CGI like a game you wanted to play a few years ago. But at least they show the real machine really flying and really fast.

It sounds cool. But cool enough to buy their stock? I don’t know. I’m index funding for the foreseeable  future.

For Sweden > Grindintosecond 09/17/2020 at 14:43

0

DoD is releasing all the toys to keep pilots in the service.

B-21 is going to drop any day now I bet.

wafflesnfalafel > Grindintosecond 09/17/2020 at 14:44

0

T hat thing sounds super cool, (love the short clips of the engineers hunched over their computers - they don’t seem quite as excited about it!)  

facw > Grindintosecond 09/17/2020 at 14:47

3

Personally, I think we’d be better served by the V-280 Valor:

The expanded range and greater speed seem like huge benefits if they can come in at a similar price point (and I think they are supposed to)

As far as I can tell these promotional videos aren’t intended to get people to buy stock (who advertises stock?), they are intended to sway the very narrow set of decision makers who are actually potentially buying these things. Seems absurd for such a small group, but we are talking about a program potentially worth tens of billions.

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > For Sweden 09/17/2020 at 14:49

1

Too many Raiders!

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > For Sweden 09/17/2020 at 14:54

1

And when I qualified for flight they had no slots! I went through OCS and then they said they had nothing, sorry about that “guaranteed” flight contract. 

3point8isgreat > facw 09/17/2020 at 15:21

0

The V-280 is a competitor for the FLRAA contract to replace the Blackhawk. Sikorsky is developing the SB-1 Defiant for this contract competition. The Defiant and the Raider are supposed to be like scaled versions of each other for some parts similarity (or at least thats what they said in one of their videos).

This Raider-X will compete against the Bell 360 Invictus for the FARA contract. This is more of a replacement for the Apache from my understanding.

(Edit: I thought it was the AH-1, being replaced. Found an article indicated that its the Apache.)

InFierority Complex > Grindintosecond 09/17/2020 at 15:23

0

Having a working prototype puts them well ahead of the Bell Invictus which only has a full size mockup right now.

I still love Kiowas.

and 100 more > Grindintosecond 09/17/2020 at 15:56

0

So, by having counter-rotating props, does that overcome a helo’s inherent speed cap?

facw > 3point8isgreat 09/17/2020 at 16:03

1

Yeah, true enough. I hadn’t seen that Bell had entered a more traditional entry for FARA (they had, including in the video above, pitched a gunship version, but I guess that’s too big/expensive for the role) . I wonder if it will hurt the Valor in the sense that it’s speed and range becomes less useful if the gunships can’t keep up.

DipodomysDeserti > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 09/17/2020 at 16:23

1

Jb boin > facw 09/17/2020 at 16:24

2

“ One thing never changes ! ”

I was really expecting. .. “ War, war never changes ! ”

3point8isgreat > facw 09/17/2020 at 16:38

1

The speed requirements are higher for FLRAA than FARA.

The FLRAA wiki has a good table for the speed and range goals.   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Long-Range_Assault_Aircraft  

FARA is only requiring 180kts. So I guess the military isn’t concerned about the gunships keeping up?

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > and 100 more 09/17/2020 at 16:51

1

Yes. The retreating blade stall is effectively cancelled by the opposing rotor. 

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > facw 09/17/2020 at 16:53

0

Dunno. The Bell has a bigger footprint which might work against them. There are pros & cons for both approaches of course.

- A Sikorsky emp.

and 100 more > Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom 09/17/2020 at 17:10

0

Just hypothetically, in a single-rotor helo, could they install a single high-lift wing surface on the retreating-blade side of the vehicle to aide lift during forward flight ?

Grindintosecond > and 100 more 09/17/2020 at 17:24

1

no. its as if the retreating blade vs. forward velocity of the craft cancel each other out and even if there was a lifting surface like you describe, there woul dbe no airflow to create the lift. It’s effectively not moving through the air at all until it rrotates around past behind the blade arc. Like if i’m flying in a 400mph plane, and i suddenly get a 400mph tailwind, I may be moving, but I have zero lift cause no wind is moving over the lift curfaces.

Grindintosecond > facw 09/17/2020 at 20:26

0

I think the v280 transmission drive system already makes it heavier and more money. 

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > and 100 more 09/18/2020 at 00:22

0

Such a wing would only be useful at speeds where retreating-blade stall becomes an issue but would cause an imbalance of lift below that speed.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > Grindintosecond 09/18/2020 at 00:32

1

Not true. There are helicopters like the AH-56 Cheyenne that had stub wings that generated lift. A 400mph tailwind doesn’t affect lift because the plane is moving with the wind. In your example you’d have an 800mph ground speed. (airspeed + tailwind = GS)

Grindintosecond > Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom 09/18/2020 at 08:11

1

.....edit....didn't read thoroughly.

Grindintosecond > Grindintosecond 09/18/2020 at 08:21

1

Ok. Then what about the low speed and wholly assymetrical lift with just one wing ?

Groundspeed vs. lift is independent. It’s relative wind I’m talking about. It takes time for a sudden tailwind to move something of mass.

Were talking about a 200mph airspeed, blades moving forward in that airflow see 500 mph airflow, and blades retreating back seeing 50. Making all, say, 6,000 pounds of lift from one side of the rotor disc area suddenly. It becomes a high speed wobble. Stub wings may control some effect, but you suddenly hit an inefficient performance wall regardless. We could speed up the rotor, but then the tips would go supersonic, lose lift totally. So make the blades smaller and more of them? Well, sure, but now you don’t have enough of a disc area to support good hover performance.

Coax blade systems fix it.

and 100 more > Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom 09/18/2020 at 11:03

0

Perhaps then something with variable geometry? A wing that remains stowed alongside the craft at low-speed, and as the speed approaches the limit of retreating-blade stall the wing swings out into the airstream?

But I’m realizing that I’m just trying to make a helicopter do something that it doesn’t need to, when we already have fixed-wing aircraft for going faster.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > and 100 more 09/19/2020 at 21:15

0

A helicopter with coax rotors and pusher prop would still be significantly faster.