- Joined
- 3 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,973
- Reaction score
- 3,258
.... or like a Sikorsky S-92 with Sikorsky X2 features !Deino said:
;DI just noticed the pusher propeller at the tail.
;DI just noticed the pusher propeller at the tail.
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,063
- Reaction score
- 8,552
No further details will be released nearest time (may be a little more in the beginning of December')
In words of Veniamin Kasyannikov, fact that desktop model of Ka-92 and CGI presented during Kamov presentation for a fraction of a second, are different, marks that 'we are still thinking of configuration'.
Is this Russian X2 - I've asked - Ok, we just need to figure out what is term 'X2 Technology' means in fact, because seems that Sikorsky itself doesn't understand it in full (with a short laugh).
Being asked about if this is because project is classified, he said that no, but there is such a term as commercial secret and propertiary, so 'we don't want to shock concurrents too early'.
In words of Veniamin Kasyannikov, fact that desktop model of Ka-92 and CGI presented during Kamov presentation for a fraction of a second, are different, marks that 'we are still thinking of configuration'.
Is this Russian X2 - I've asked - Ok, we just need to figure out what is term 'X2 Technology' means in fact, because seems that Sikorsky itself doesn't understand it in full (with a short laugh).
Being asked about if this is because project is classified, he said that no, but there is such a term as commercial secret and propertiary, so 'we don't want to shock concurrents too early'.
- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 4,094
- Reaction score
- 4,500
I found this picture elsewhere... but I have to wonder how Kamov expects to overcome the fact that there is a rather large propeller very close to the back ramp of the aircraft. Without some sort of mechanism to lift it out of the way, likely adding to the maintainers nightmare, even if you stop the propeller during ground operations, you will end up eventually with someone driving a vehicle into one of the props.
I am looking forward to watching how this design (and the Mil ones work out).
I am looking forward to watching how this design (and the Mil ones work out).
Attachments
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,063
- Reaction score
- 8,552
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,063
- Reaction score
- 8,552
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,063
- Reaction score
- 8,552
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,063
- Reaction score
- 8,552
In short, this is probably the first time Western internet community sees these new choppers. Big thanks to Muxel for stealing me from the office, logistics forth and back, sharing pics and a good company.
- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 4,094
- Reaction score
- 4,500
Indeed very impressive works all of them. My thanks to both gentlemen for the opportunity to see the ideas of the great Russian rotorcraft companies. It seems there has been a good bit of work on the Ka-92 as there is a drastic (?) change at least to the fuselage. I also note what appears to be a completely new rotor system. 4X blades and a much thicker chord..
- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 4,094
- Reaction score
- 4,500
flateric said:
Given that he talks all the time about his friends in Russia, it certainly is not a surprise (to me) that he would be there. The politicians have not screwed up relations enough yet to preclude attending each others technical displays.
A
avatar
Guest
force magazine says something similar .. I'll check.
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,063
- Reaction score
- 8,552
Kamov has changed base for planned Ka-62 production for the fourth time, postponing LRIP to 2012 (Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant -> Lukhovitzy Machine building plant -> Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant again -> Arsenyev aviation company Progress).
according to new plans:
first serial -62 - QI 2009
in 2012 - LRIP starts
in 2014 - 30-40 -62s per year
according to new plans:
first serial -62 - QI 2009
in 2012 - LRIP starts
in 2014 - 30-40 -62s per year
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,936
- Reaction score
- 21,849
- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 4,094
- Reaction score
- 4,500
Gavin said:
It does not appear there would be sufficient room for a rear ramp. Even if there was, without some form of protection the unducted prop would be a hazard for that sort of thing. Even an eight or nine foot clearance, it can be a two or three foot clearance if you land next to or on a slope.
- Joined
- 3 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,973
- Reaction score
- 3,258
yasotay said:
This model of the Ka-92 is a pax version, so it might not have a rear ramp. Exit doors are on the side.
A cargo/rear ramp version might have a folding rear push rotor á la V-22 or the push rotor would be on the side like that heavy lift concept of the Sikorsky X2 family.
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,063
- Reaction score
- 8,552
HeliRussia 2008
Me: Err...One my friend, ex-US military pilot from Ft.Rucker, he's nutty of your design...
Kamov old man: Oh, yes
Me: ...but is still wondering how are you going to load stuff to Ka-92 ramp...there's should be ramp there on a military version (I suspect there will be a military version, yes), aren't? What are you gonna do with rotating pusher? It's damn dangerous when it at idle power, otherwise...how you gonna drive you GAZ to the ramp
Kamov old man: This is quite clear, young man (comes to the model and making passes with hands) - you just drive from this side (showing approach from the 45 degrees to the compound CL) or, you can drive from the other side! There are plenty of space there! Can't you understand?
Me (looking from below to the underbelly): Where?
Kamov old man: Oh, yes (rotating pusher) - and we can stop it in this position - do you see, yes?
Me: Err...yes...
Me: Err...One my friend, ex-US military pilot from Ft.Rucker, he's nutty of your design...
Kamov old man: Oh, yes
Me: ...but is still wondering how are you going to load stuff to Ka-92 ramp...there's should be ramp there on a military version (I suspect there will be a military version, yes), aren't? What are you gonna do with rotating pusher? It's damn dangerous when it at idle power, otherwise...how you gonna drive you GAZ to the ramp
Kamov old man: This is quite clear, young man (comes to the model and making passes with hands) - you just drive from this side (showing approach from the 45 degrees to the compound CL) or, you can drive from the other side! There are plenty of space there! Can't you understand?
Me (looking from below to the underbelly): Where?
Kamov old man: Oh, yes (rotating pusher) - and we can stop it in this position - do you see, yes?
Me: Err...yes...
SlickDriver
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 20 June 2006
- Messages
- 161
- Reaction score
- 34
I look at the pictures and drawings of Russian/Soviet helicopters and can't help but notice that they seem to always place the exhaust ports right below the masts - why?
It seem crazy to have the most vulnerable piece of equipment with the hottest surface at the same place. It's like their asking for a heat seeking missile. Including these two.
Anybody know why?
It seem crazy to have the most vulnerable piece of equipment with the hottest surface at the same place. It's like their asking for a heat seeking missile. Including these two.
Anybody know why?
flateric said:
I suppose that the rear rotor wouldn't be needed at slow speed, right? So it could be stopped and locked in place before landing? But it seems a bit awkward to expect vehicles to load and unload at 45 degree angles . . . then again, every design is a trade-off. The additional speed gained by the push rotor is probably worth some awkwardness in loading and unloading.
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but I didn't notice: How does the top speed compare to the Osprey's?
Matej
Multiuniversal creator
Attachments
Model of Kamov Ka-92 on display at Heli-Russia 2009.
Source: http://www.avia-n-aero.ru/photo.php?category_id=689&parent_id=689
Source: http://www.avia-n-aero.ru/photo.php?category_id=689&parent_id=689
Attachments
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,063
- Reaction score
- 8,552
more stakes for Mil (current industry controlling holding, Russian Helicopters, chief Shibitov and tops over him from Oboronexport are ex-Mil guys),
but judging from current situation, no one - no funding
but judging from current situation, no one - no funding
- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 882
flateric said:
That will work until the first time Forest Gump comes down that aft ramp and just keeps on running. Sure he may be no great loss to the platoon but his helmet or particularly thick skull will ruin a propeller blade and suddenly the Ka-92 is unserviceable.
They could configure their vertical stabilisers so they provide some protection to the propeller or even string an antenna between the two to provide some kind of barrier. Either that or a big side door with ramp and do the 45 degree twist inside the cargo bay.
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,439
- Reaction score
- 735
Purpose-built cargo vehicles usually sacrifice EVERYTHING to 'loadability' (see the atrocious aerodynamics, and compromised load paths of aft body on C-130, C-17, V-22, etc.). It is unfortunate that the tail pusher prop is IMHO a non-starter for driving vehicles inside. For a given payload size, the 45-degree twist maneuver likely increases the airframe-to-payload clearance requirements that are already so penalising in vehicles with straight entry.
Stopping the prop and rotating it to a pre-defined position is also unlikely as you would still have 19-year-old privates forget about it and drive a truck into it, plus it takes extra time to stop the prop and then re-start it again, all the while people might be shooting at you.
Wrapping a duct around the prop and flat-pitching during ground operations might help a little, but it impacts cruise performance and would still be scary. The only solution i see is to split the thruster prop into ducted units on each side (although the transmission is more complex and now it might affect passenger entrance!). Wasn't there a Mil or Ka compound that had that configuration?
Stopping the prop and rotating it to a pre-defined position is also unlikely as you would still have 19-year-old privates forget about it and drive a truck into it, plus it takes extra time to stop the prop and then re-start it again, all the while people might be shooting at you.
Wrapping a duct around the prop and flat-pitching during ground operations might help a little, but it impacts cruise performance and would still be scary. The only solution i see is to split the thruster prop into ducted units on each side (although the transmission is more complex and now it might affect passenger entrance!). Wasn't there a Mil or Ka compound that had that configuration?
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,439
- Reaction score
- 735
Thanks for the effort, but the one I had in mind wasn't a tandem rotor, and the props were ducted. I searched for it in my files and could not find it, so I might just as easily imagined it. ???
Be that as it may, it's reasonably doable. You might even get some benefit from using differential thrust for yaw control, something that co-axial helos do not excel at. The added complexity and weight may not warrant it, though. I am sure people at Kamov have considered these kinds of things before coming up with the current configuration.
Be that as it may, it's reasonably doable. You might even get some benefit from using differential thrust for yaw control, something that co-axial helos do not excel at. The added complexity and weight may not warrant it, though. I am sure people at Kamov have considered these kinds of things before coming up with the current configuration.
- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 882
An alternative would be to lift the propeller out of the ramp traffic. Would add an additional couple of CV joints and a new tail structure (could be used as a stabiliser) and would increase drag and flow interference from the rotors with the propeller (which already exists in the current configuration). But it would make approaching the ramp from the rear on level ground safe.
Attachments
Similar threads
-
-
-
Project 1125 Anti Submarine Warfare Cruiser Design- Started by Tzoli
- Replies: 3
-
-
