Could be a Good Summer for Helo Fans

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
The Army may announce their decision on the designs for the their future rotor craft this summer. I for one can't wait to see what is going to be zipping through the skies of tomorrow.......


NASHVILLE, Tennessee — Helicopter-makers say they’re eagerly awaiting a decision expected this summer from the U.S. Army to move forward with development of a futuristic rotorcraft.

The program, known officially as the Joint Multi-Role helicopter, or JMR, has attracted defense giants such as United Technologies Corp.‘s Sikorsky unit, Textron Inc.‘s Bell Helicopter, as well as the small, closely held firms AVX Aircraft Co. and Karem Aircraft Inc.

Despite automatic budget cuts, the service is trying to protect research and development funding to design next-generation helicopters that fly twice as far as today’s models and with better fuel efficiency, according to Heidi Shyu, the Army’s top acquisition official.

The Army is conducting a “significant amount” of analysis of vertical lift technology in preparation of “upcoming material development decisions,” she said during a presentation on Monday at the Army Aviation Association of America’s annual conference, known as Quad A.



Defense Tech

As a side story, I wonder if the recent interest from foreign militaries might influence the Army's decision on the S-97 Raider design?

DoD Buzz





posted on May, 9 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
There are some nice designs in those links. Nice pics as well.

Eye candy indeed.

P



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Personally I love Sikorsky's S-97 and SB>1 design.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

When you add in the optionally manned stuff, it gets really interesting in the helo world.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The S-97 mock up was on display at the Heli Expo in Anaheim early this year. Nice.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: rockflier

Yeah, that's a PRETTY bird.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Urgh are you guys wearing beer goggles. I think the s-97 looks horrible. I mean when you go and add a prop at the read of a helicopter it ruins it. Those images look like a child has made them up after being asked to draw a future plane. That's my opinion anyway
edit on 10-5-2014 by ThePeaceMaker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

I did not mean that it was aesthetically pleasing, I meant the capabilities. Vertical life transitioning to forward high speed flight without the O-22 or V-22 huge transitioning rotors. Maybe ugly but dang is it high performance.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

I don't care if it's ugly and I haven't put on my beer goggles yet. The important fact that is it moves into the battlespace at least 100 mph faster than a conventional helicopter. This means that a commander can put more troops on the ground faster, remove your wounded quicker and resupply sooner.

On the down side, this is a compound helicopter not a true helo. It has a coaxial rotor system with rotor blades moving clockwise and counter-clockwise directions. On the up-side it cancels the torque effect which makes the helo difficult to fly in a hover and with power changes making the tail rotor unnecessary. On the down side, the coaxal rotor system requires more maintenance because it has two sets of everything from the cabin upward.

Our rotorcraft inventory is getting older with some army helicopters being 30 years old. This requires more maintenance/man-hours and time unavailable for service. Will the Raider improve this being more complex?



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

The KMax track record shows how effective the dual rotor system can be though. They are a heck of a work horse. Even though not coaxial, the KMax system is probably more maintenance intensive. It works very well.
edit on 5101414 by rockflier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Ah yeah I've just gone on looks. Isn't there a prettier way to build a new heli and have all the performance required

It was just a personal observation I've never been a fan of the coaxial design either. Never the less I do like seeing new ideas



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

To each their own I suppose. I still think it looks sexy (better than an Apache) and I don't even drink.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: rockflier

I'm not saying coaxial systems are inefficient but made the observation as to the maintenance requirements to keep these birds available for service. The Raider has many new technologies like fly-by-wire though not new it's new to helicopters. There always is a learning curve for new aircraft as far as operations and maintenance.

I agree with you concerning the Kmax. Charles Kaman really did his homework there and his interleaving (sp?) rotor system is simple. Everything he did improved the design like using servo flaps for rotor control which makes hyraulics unnecessary saving weight. The rotor blades were made of wood improving blade fatigue life before fibre glass was available...smart guy! The only improvement he missed was the speed ...it's airspeed indicator is graduated in weeks.

I'm a big fan of tandem rotor helos like the Chinook and the Sea Knight. I have even made several model of a tandem to study the air flow around and through the rotors...It keeps me out of the pub, lol.
edit on 10-5-2014 by buddah6 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

Any time there is new technology or models, the maintenance techs have a very steep learning curve. My hats off to them.
I started out in 47G's, then UH-1C, then returned to fixed wing. Last ten years flew AS350 and EC130 as well as fixed (757-200).
I just fly them (used to, retired now from fixed and rotary). You are FAR above me with the engineering aspects. Heck, I am just the driver.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

To each their own I suppose. I still think it looks sexy (better than an Apache) and I don't even drink.


I will pretend I didn't read that comment
the apache looks sexy and deadly and I love the combination lol but yeh each to their own I suppose.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
This kind of caught my eye also.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: rockflier

Your background is similar to mine. I flew the OH 6 in RVN followed by UH 1's in the guard until I was promoted out of my slot. Later, I started flying OV 1's where I stayed until my retirement. On the civilian side I worked for two regional carriers driving the SF 340's and Canadair CRJ's. Now, I'm retired working on my little projects with the most recent completion of a 3/4 scale jeep for the grandkids. You already know about my tandem rotor project that is about 5 years old and still counting...I'm slow, lol.

I'm new on ATS and I find some of the attitudes and opinions very entertaining especially the black helicopters.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: rockflier

I'I'm a big fan of tandem rotor helos like the Chinook and the Sea Knight. I have even made several model of a tandem to study the air flow around and through the rotors...It keeps me out of the pub, lol.


Aside from the Chinook and Sea Knight (which are obviously not attack helos), has anyone other than the ruskies made a contra rotating attack helo like the Kamov thing?

Any reason why?



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

They tried to replace the Blackhawk with the Lakota. The LUH is now a non-deployable helicopter because it is under powered. Whatever they decide on needs to be powerful enough to hand air assault missions, quiet enough to maintain an element of surprise, and fast enough to get on target before the patient bleeds out or the target leaves the area.

Right now the Army is moving into the mentality of everything needs to be multirole. But not everything can be. Take, for example, the scrapping of the OH58 and the use of the Apache to fill the scouting and base defense role.

Let us not forget that the Apache spends more time in the hangar than it does in the air. When it does fly it is great for certain applications, but not for everything.

The designs are neat and pretty. But as a Blackhawk crewchief that has entered combat, if the function isn't there, then it's just another hunk of money down the drain.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

Fly by wire isn't new to helicopters. Sikorsky's S70i is a civilian M-Model Blackhawk and if you slide open the hydraulic deck all you see is three hyd pumps and some wires.

FBW systems are reliable. We've proven it. But are they reliable in an air assault unit that will likely take rounds?
edit on pSun, 11 May 2014 10:02:09 -0500201411America/Chicago2014-05-11T10:02:09-05:0031vx5 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join