- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,027
- Reaction score
- 22,277
Sikorsky X-Wing Projects
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 January 2006
- Messages
- 4,133
- Reaction score
- 1,738
A lot of info about Sikorsky X-Wing projects in last APR issue
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/v5n6.htm
The first pic is an LHX-Utility submission. Original LHX called for two types or versions, a combat scout and a utility machine.
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/v5n6.htm
The first pic is an LHX-Utility submission. Original LHX called for two types or versions, a combat scout and a utility machine.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,027
- Reaction score
- 22,277
Not sure, no. I thought Sikorsky had the patent on X-wing, so I just assumed I think.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,027
- Reaction score
- 22,277
theponja
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 5 September 2007
- Messages
- 429
- Reaction score
- 41
Wow. This is very interesting.
One question: the very first picture Sikorsky_x-wing_01.jpg is really a concept or just an artist impression?
Because looks well "unreal" for example the 3er picture looks like a "prototype".
One question: the very first picture Sikorsky_x-wing_01.jpg is really a concept or just an artist impression?
Because looks well "unreal" for example the 3er picture looks like a "prototype".
Zactoman
ACCESS: Restricted
pometablava said:
Which I have just converted to PDF, without modifications. I'll be making it available on CD-ROM within a few days (it's not part of the regular run of the "eAPR" issues).
Good thing about being on Cd now is that the artwork is in color.
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,638
- Reaction score
- 3,558
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,172
X-wing was a dead end. Originally the story was that it would enable a supersonic rotary winged vehicle, then that was scaled back to a high transonic, then jet speeds, then a concept that would have a dash speed higher than that of a Tilt-Rotor. but would have to cruise slower (although Bell-Boeing showed that if you were willing to give up some hover efficiency, a Tilt-Rotor could match the X-wing's dash speed). The transition to/from rotorborne flight would be very tricky and the aircraft would be restricted in its maneuver capability during that period. In fact, there was a high degree of concern that during the transition, an X-wing would not be able to maintain level flight. That's one of the reasons that later concept drawings started showing auxiliary powerplants, which kind of defeated the whole purpose of having an X-wing. They never even succeeded in getting the NASA Rotor Systems Research Aircraft which had an X-wing on it that would demonstrate rotor blowing, but nothing else (it would fly due to its conventional wings) into the air.
The thing started out as a promising idea but became mostly an engineering exercise for its own sake. It was when proponents started proudly proclaiming that the X-Wing would have to have "...a flight control system an order of magnitude more complicated than the Space Shuttle", that people realized that with enough money they could probably make the concept work, but why? it didn't really offer anything that couldn't be done simpler and sooner for a lot less money with a Tilt-Rotor.
LHX was never proposed for the LHX competition. There were artists' concepts of how an LHX sized X-Wing would look, but Sikorsky realized that since no one knew how to build one, the Army wasn't going to award the program to such a vehicle. It didn't help that the actual X-Wing rotor would also function as a homing beacon for IR missiles. Plus, once the LHX specifications were rewritten to exclude Tilt-Rotor, those exclusions would go quadruple for an X-Wing even if you could build one.
The thing started out as a promising idea but became mostly an engineering exercise for its own sake. It was when proponents started proudly proclaiming that the X-Wing would have to have "...a flight control system an order of magnitude more complicated than the Space Shuttle", that people realized that with enough money they could probably make the concept work, but why? it didn't really offer anything that couldn't be done simpler and sooner for a lot less money with a Tilt-Rotor.
LHX was never proposed for the LHX competition. There were artists' concepts of how an LHX sized X-Wing would look, but Sikorsky realized that since no one knew how to build one, the Army wasn't going to award the program to such a vehicle. It didn't help that the actual X-Wing rotor would also function as a homing beacon for IR missiles. Plus, once the LHX specifications were rewritten to exclude Tilt-Rotor, those exclusions would go quadruple for an X-Wing even if you could build one.
I remember the Sikorsky X-Wing/S-72 demonstrator from 1986 which was featured heavily in both the print and mass media and the graphics explaining its' blown air circulation system employed during transition to forward flight. Don't know whether it is the same circulation system employed in the X-51 CRW, now that CRW is cancelled, there's no more whispercraft in the horizon and warp speed is definitely very, very far away.
Matej
Multiuniversal creator
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,172
amsci99 said:
Remember, the S-72 with the X-Wing never flew. Even if it had, there was no intention of trying a transition as the technology to do so was not there and it would be too dangerous. The circulation system was the part that required the incredibly complex control system. If you look at transition step by step and what's involved, you'll see one of the big reasons the concept went nowhere.
As far as "whispercraft" go, if there's one thing an X-Wing wouldn't be, it wouldn't be quiet. It would be much noisier than conventional helos.
Regarding warp speed, not sure I follow. Remember, X-Wing would cruise slower than a Tilt-Rotor. CCRW (you accidentally dropped a "C"--it's Circulation Controlled Rotary Wing) was the underlying idea behind X-Wing. X-51, though, is a scramjet waverider demonstrator.
F-14D said:
F-14D,
Thanks for your insight and enjoyed your posts tremendously. Actually I was referring to the X-50 CRW (Canard Rotor Wing) and not the X-51. I apologise for the typo. In essence, I was lamenting that we would not be seeing a 'Whispercraft' type CRW rotorcraft as seen in the sci-fi movie 'The Sixth Day' now that CRW has been cancelled. That part about warp drive was about my disappointment with the current state of technology and it's inability to resolve complex engineering problems which inadvertably means that warp drive technology is a long way off.
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,172
amsci99 said:
Thanks for the kind words. CRW technology wouldn't be very quiet either, so we're still searching for that "Whispercraft". While not as complex as X-Wing, transition with a CRW would still be quite a difficult task.
Regarding your comments about engineering, I think what's happening reflect not so much an inability to resolve complex engineering problems (consider the engineering involved in the latest nuclear submarines, something that can move the water at 22 knots as quietly as most other subs do at 3), as much as in aviation a lack of patience on the part of the funding parties, and/or a view that development's purpose is no longer to advance the technology but to reduce the risk, a subtle but meaningful difference when we're trying to get from here to there.
I suspect, though, that Mr. Scott's out there somewhere.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,027
- Reaction score
- 22,277
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,461
- Reaction score
- 3,963
Wembley said:
Oh yes. Bigger in terms of the size of the program or dollars spent, maybe. They were solving a different set of problems than the NASA program was.
AvWeek mentioned the program several times in the mid-late 90s, I believe all articles by Bill Scott.
overscan said:
Oh, if only there was a place to go to get high quality, full-color versions of this artwork, along with detailed layout drawings and dimensions and discussion of this and other X-Wing design concepts. Wail at the lack of such a ready source, at a reasonable price!
Oh, wait.
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/index.htm#V5N6
Attachments
Remko said:Exactly the reason why I have emailed Scott to order this volume!!;D
All you need to do is hit the "Add To Cart" button...
Charles Gray
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 13 October 2007
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 2
F-14D said:
Do you think it's simply a matter of not being high priority enough/there are other ways of doing it that are simpler, or that it's honestly a technological dead end?
xstatic3000
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 15 September 2008
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 38
quellish said:
I know that there's not much to go on, but I suspect that Quellish's remarks may be some of the most significant in the history of the forum.
This is just pure speculation, but this image, posted previously as a Lockheed UCAR concept, bears a resemblance to what's being described:
Attachments
It looks good, but I can't tell if that's a factory model or a "hand-made with Asian slave labor from gen-u-wine Philipine mahogany" wonder. It's surrounded by a whole lot of the latter:
http://lloydralstontoys.com/jan10/jan10lots3.html
http://lloydralstontoys.com/jan10/jan10lots3.html
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 14,256
- Reaction score
- 4,602
Orionblamblam said:
Well, the Asian-made display models scarcely depict little-known projects or alternate configurations. They usually represent aircraft people know and love to the extent they will be willing to purchase them. We project-lovers remain a rare species... This model is by no means a representation of the S-72 X-Wing demonstrator (which DOES appear in your link) but a separate and ill-documented derivative design. This makes me think that the picture could be of a genuine period model, not a modern redux.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
Sikorsky S-61 prototypes, projects and license builds- Started by Caravellarella
- Replies: 61
-
