AIRBUS RACER / Clean Sky2 LifeRCraft Demonstrator

While I am a devout believe in; "If it can go wrong, it will," there are certainly safeguards that could be implemented to decrease the opportunity for Darwinian selection. Weight on wheels switch could automatically decouple the propellors and put them in beta or feathered status to slow them to a stop. Modern LED lights (both visual and IR) can be inserted into the propellors to make it abundantly clear where not to go. All of this said, I remain concerned about the military utility due to the hazard. People who have not slept in days and are wanting to get away from other people trying to kill them tend not to be on the same level of rational thought as those of us who sit in air-conditioned safe spaces sipping our favorite caffeinated beverage.
As I said earlier, I do think the technology, as being built, can be used for civil purposes more readily. Certainly, civil Emergency Medical Evacuation will need some consideration as those can be chaotic environments as well, but VIP and deep-sea oil rig transport where you can control the movement of people are certainly viable in my opinion.
 
The super-fast Airbus Racer helicopter will take off in February

So apparently they meant end of March, not February? Lousy messaging from Airbus.

From the pics from yesterday’s press event there still seems to be some way to go…
View: https://x.com/AlcockNews/status/1757392994079035771?s=20

Interesting that they also for the first time stressed the commonality with conventional helicopters (from both a parts and pilot training perspective), potentially leading to easier mixed-fleet operations of conventional and “Racer” helicopters under one roof.

 

Attachments

  • IMG_2080.png
    IMG_2080.png
    1,012.2 KB · Views: 37
  • IMG_2079.png
    IMG_2079.png
    918.7 KB · Views: 28
  • IMG_2078.png
    IMG_2078.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 25
  • IMG_2083.jpeg
    IMG_2083.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 32
Interesting that they also for the first time stressed the commonality with conventional helicopters (from both a parts and pilot training perspective), potentially leading to easier mixed-fleet operations of conventional and “Racer” helicopters under one roof.
I mean, it's a simple compound helicopter, only slightly more complex than the Cheyenne arrangement. Trivially more complex than Cheyenne, IMO.

So I agree that it's a much easier training program than V280s or Ospreys.
 
I find it fascinating that in part the upper wing is to shield the lower wing from the downwash of the main rotors so that it generates more lift and also to minimise the vertical drag when hovering compared to a single larger wing. Lot of complex aerodynamic interactions between the different elements.
 
I find it fascinating that in part the upper wing is to shield the lower wing from the downwash of the main rotors so that it generates more lift and also to minimise the vertical drag when hovering compared to a single larger wing. Lot of complex aerodynamic interactions between the different elements.
engineers getting sneaky!
 
LifeRCraft = Low Impact, Fast & Efficient RotorCraft

The next step after X³

Refer to page 332 (8.7 Compound Rotorcraft Demonstration (LifeRCraft)) for further information:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/partic...l/jti/h2020-guide-techprog-cleansky-ju_en.pdf

Info about Clean Sky: http://www.cleansky.eu/fast-rotorcraft

BR Michael

...H160 derivative? ::)

Made its first flight


1714037862897.png
 
Made its first flight

A few more pics.

GMAJcDrWYAA4nw2


image.jpg


GMAJeUdWMAAP31J
 
Last edited:
More test flights… this one on April 30th.
IMG_2494.jpeg

Looking clean with the landing gear retracted.
IMG_2495.jpeg
 
P.S. I wonder if test flights with 4 people on board (as opposed to the 1 test pilot on Leonardo’s NGCTR sitting on an ejection seat) are a sign that this design is fundamentally better suited to civilian market adoption?

(ie. Greater confidence in the design’s inherrent safety and simpler mechanical arrangement)
 
Roll stability is awkwardly low. And it doesn´t seem wind is at play here. The controls in roll seem to be a bit touchy.
Regarding the extra test crew members, they are probably doing so according to their own procedures, with an in-flight check of parameters and monitoring recording installations as well as guiding the pilots through the test scenario.

Here is an example with the A350:
 
Last edited:
Roll stability is awkwardly low. And it doesn´t seem wind is at pay here. The control in roll seems to be a bit touchy.
Regarding the extra test crew members, they are probably doing so according to their own procedures, with an in-flight check of parameters and monitoring recording installations as well as guiding the pilots through the test scenario.

Here is an example with the A350:
That may be flight control laws that need adjustments. Remember the Raider oops, where the roll oscillations got bad enough to make the blades cross? Happened because of how the bird transitioned from "on the ground" to "in the air", something went odd and made the stick have 2.5x greater effect per input during the transition.
 
I agree that it a control law tweak is the most likely issue. However, I did note it was not an overly calm day for that test flight. Assuming all of the video was from the same flight. Makes me think that the control laws are going to be interesting for gust response.
 
True that some sequences might have been during a windy day (I hadn´t noticed earlier the rough sea in the background - Mediterranean cost line - in some of the shots).

Control laws are obviously at play with a stability issue. But sometime you can´t fix all this way only without leaving your vehicle standing as a lemon.
 

Racer flew up to 80 knots (almost 150 km/h) during its first flight and reached 165 knots during its second flight on April 30.
 
P.S. Quick comparison of flight test milestones:

S-97 Raider: 14 months & 19 flight hrs to reach 150 knots
SB-1 Defiant: 11 months & 11 flight hrs to reach 140 knots
Eurocopter X3: 3 months & 10 flight hrs to reach 180 knots
>> Racer: 5 days & 1 flight hr to reach 165 knots
 
Last edited:
P.S. Quick comparison of flight test milestones:

S-97 Raider: 14 months and 19 flight hrs to reach 150 knots
SB-1 Defiant: 11 months and 11 flight hrs to reach 140 knots
Eurocopter X3: 3 months and 10 flight hrs to reach 180 knots
>> Racer: 5 days and 1 flight hr to reach 165 knots
That's quite impressive indeed!
 
Spectacular that Airbus elected to roll the dice early toward higher speeds. I imagine getting as many flight card data points out before the other Clean Sky demonstrator begins its program is a prudent marketing position. We must also remember that this is a demonstrator aircraft, not a prototype, although it may be close to prototype representative.

I would remind all that high speed and low speed stability are not necessarily the same. It would be very lucky indeed if all of the control laws were 100% correct on the first flight. Two flights do not even provide enough data to establish trends. Six months from now they might have enough data (beyond the test pilots reports) to confirm major issues, if there are any.
 
Don´t forget that this is an European program at the edge of a contested European major election. Hastily looking for a record, if that is, is probably not that glamourous...
 
Don´t forget that this is an European program at the edge of a contested European major election. Hastily looking for a record, if that is, is probably not that glamourous...

Airbus’s media teams have stayed radio silent about that 2nd flight - no press release, no social media post, no press invites or pictures - so it doesn’t seem like the decision to fly 165 knots so soon was for PR or political reasons.

This info only came out because Vertical Mag’s reporter made the effort to attend a specialist industry symposium and knew to ask the right questions to get a « scoop » that everyone else had missed.

However to @yasotay ´s point, it does seem possible that there could be some internal timeline pressures to meet Clean Sky deadlines for R&D funding…
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom