JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs

There are a number of reasons that the U.S. Army would prefer not to question the viability of the coaxial compound concept at this point. First there is an active competition ongoing with the coaxial compound one of the competitors. Second, pointing out that one of the platforms is not tenable in an already contentious program is not good for maintaining the program. Third, the U.S. Army might really want coaxial compound as it is more technologically challenging, and Congress prefers to through money at fancy new aviation technology.
I would remind all that 50% of the coaxial compound that Sikorsky has flown, have had rotor intermeshing issues (fortunately while at a hover). All have shown excessive vibration at the higher speeds. High speed being the reason to do the unconventional rotor technology in the first place.
I can only think of one intermeshing incident while in the air. The S-97 Raider's control laws fumbled the transition between ground and air mode and had the wrong set of control laws active while in the air and intermeshed the rotors while in a hover while suffering massive roll oscillations. The XH-59A had a crash early in flight test due to running out of longitudinal pitch authority. There's a photo of it practically standing on its tail but the rotors don't appear intermeshed. Perhaps they did a few seconds later. The X-2 Technology Demonstrator didn't intermesh rotors and neither did the SB>1 Defiant. So I count 4 Sikorsky X-2 aircraft but only 1 intermesh incident. I'd call it 25%.

Fully agree on the high vibrations at high speed cruise... it's a subject of some hilarity in the industry. Shouldn't just be high speed cruise, either, according to theory.
Don't know how you get rid of the vibration at high speed. I suspect it's caused when the blades pass each other and their close proximity. Maybe Lockheed had it right with the AH-56. Just use one rigid rotor and unload it at high speed with the wing.
 
@sferrin - "Maybe Lockheed had it right with the AH-56. Just use one rigid rotor and unload it at high speed with the wing." Which is to an extent what Bell has done with the Invictus (a.k.a. Cobranche).

@e-Graphite - It is my understanding that the blades did intermesh on the XH-59, as a result of the pitch issue. But I will concede that I could be misinformed. The concern from this (and S-97 intermesh) is that the platform is to be a low level scout able to do hard maneuvering at low altitude (nap of the earth) in contact with the enemy. If the aircrew must concern themselves with moderation of control input, there is, in my opinion an extra level of risk. I do not think this a show stopper for the platform. Honestly I am more concerned with the high vibration loads in the coaxial compound and the potential implications toward normal field maintenance required. It is my opinion that the U.S. Army does not need yet another attack/reconnaissance helicopter that has a bad maintenance to flight hour ratio. Given the misadventures that are ongoing with the selected engine for the program, I am already dubious of either vendors claims regarding maintenance.
 
I don't think ride comfort at high-speed is going to be found on any rotor-craft. Flight crew is going to be beat up at high speed on pretty much any platform. Clear tilt-rotor advantage on that point.
Cheyenne had it's own issues with the rotor loads under specific conditions. Boom strikes can happen to almost any design under the right (wrong) conditions. Almost every helicopter in production has had a boom strike or intermeshing rotor strike. Early Phrogs were infamous for rotors hitting each other or the fuselage due to structural loads on the rotors and pylons in addition to transmission failures. Also notorious mechanical problems for the Phrog that evolved into a gold-standard for reliability given enough time. Chinooks just had a harmonic issue with their fancy new rotor system very recently.

The whole point of development programs is to find these adverse conditions and address them either through mechanical means or modifying the flight-control system. Whether the parent service or Congress has the time, money, or patience for a drawn-out development program is a whole other can of worms. As noted, neither the Invictus or Raider currently have the engine they were designed for available. Not a great start on that front.
 
@sferrin - "Maybe Lockheed had it right with the AH-56. Just use one rigid rotor and unload it at high speed with the wing." Which is to an extent what Bell has done with the Invictus (a.k.a. Cobranche).
Just want to point out that Invictus has an articulated rotor, not a rigid rotor, so it avoids the vibrations that come with that configuration. AH-56 wasn't really a rigid rotor like the X-2 systems, either. It did flap, just not much. Both are stiff-in-plane, but the X-2 rotors are far stiffer out of plane than AH-56.
 
It's all about the functional architecture, or rather the lack of detail of it:
It's puzzling how they could mess up so bad in this regard. Allocation and decomposition of functions is an elementary engineering discipline. I really don't get it.
You've also got the OMS lead saying that they made it so simple that they got a tennyear to explain it. For me, it just points towards it not being a mistake and instead being a Sikorsky business decision to ignore OMS compliance (in order to secure vendor lock in and future income) which has bitten them. Its nothing to do with technical merits of one configuration or the other.
Sounds to me like the Army carefully circumvented the whole mess of whether or not the rigid coaxial rotor actually worked, and found a ready made excuse in the non-compliance in other fields.
Which, to be fair, were apparently quite serious.

Mind you, this might be because if they'd said that the rigid coaxial rotor didn't work, they might also have instigated trouble with the FARA bids: Maybe the concept works on a smaller scale, but if they disqualified Sikorsky because of the failure of the RCR concept in the large unit, it could easily give Bell a nice reason to protest if they lose the FARA bid.
After all, RCR craft don't work, see the JMR results!
Just want to state that I completely agree that the Sikorsky-Boeing team could not be awarded FLRAA due to their incomplete systems engineering and architecture model. Pretty mind-blowing that they screwed up this part of the proposal so badly. The Army decision and Sikorsky protest didn't focus on aircraft performance, though Bell did receive a higher rating in that category. Still, being "Acceptable" for Weapon System Performance and Design would still allow them to be selected.

So to be specific, my contention is that not only did Sikorsky utterly drop the ball on completing the required proposal paperwork completely, but that their aircraft also doesn't function as advertised. I also don't think Raider-X will function as advertised.
 
I have to wonder if the folks at Kamov rolled their eyes or tried not to "snort tea" giggling when they first heard of the revival of the ABC system in the US.
It will be interesting in the coming years to see what direction Sikorsky goes with advanced rotorcraft if Raider is not selected. They did extensive work in the past with tilt wing technology and variable diameter rotor systems.
 
I have to wonder if the folks at Kamov rolled their eyes or tried not to "snort tea" giggling when they first heard of the revival of the ABC system in the US.
It will be interesting in the coming years to see what direction Sikorsky goes with advanced rotorcraft if Raider is not selected. They did extensive work in the past with tilt wing technology and variable diameter rotor systems.
I hope they reconsider the Rotoprop!
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ture-vertical-lift-programs.13812/post-572610
 
I have to wonder if the folks at Kamov rolled their eyes or tried not to "snort tea" giggling when they first heard of the revival of the ABC system in the US.
It will be interesting in the coming years to see what direction Sikorsky goes with advanced rotorcraft if Raider is not selected. They did extensive work in the past with tilt wing technology and variable diameter rotor systems.
I'm familiar with Sikorsky's variable diameter tilt rotor approach... but not any tilt wing designs. Any references? Thanks!
 
I have to wonder if the folks at Kamov rolled their eyes or tried not to "snort tea" giggling when they first heard of the revival of the ABC system in the US.
It will be interesting in the coming years to see what direction Sikorsky goes with advanced rotorcraft if Raider is not selected. They did extensive work in the past with tilt wing technology and variable diameter rotor systems.
I'm familiar with Sikorsky's variable diameter tilt rotor approach... but not any tilt wing designs. Any references? Thanks!

Quite a few on this site:

 
I have to wonder if the folks at Kamov rolled their eyes or tried not to "snort tea" giggling when they first heard of the revival of the ABC system in the US.
It will be interesting in the coming years to see what direction Sikorsky goes with advanced rotorcraft if Raider is not selected. They did extensive work in the past with tilt wing technology and variable diameter rotor systems.
I'm familiar with Sikorsky's variable diameter tilt rotor approach... but not any tilt wing designs. Any references? Thanks!

Quite a few on this site:

I appreciate the link, still getting used to this site somewhat. I do recall the rotor blown wing DARPA x-plane which is essentially a tilt wing without the fuselage... with one distinction is that Sikorsky's tail sitting rotor blown wing had a flapping rotor head as opposed to a rigid propeller style head. Much more practical.
 
@sferrin - "Maybe Lockheed had it right with the AH-56. Just use one rigid rotor and unload it at high speed with the wing." Which is to an extent what Bell has done with the Invictus (a.k.a. Cobranche).
Just want to point out that Invictus has an articulated rotor, not a rigid rotor, so it avoids the vibrations that come with that configuration. AH-56 wasn't really a rigid rotor like the X-2 systems, either. It did flap, just not much. Both are stiff-in-plane, but the X-2 rotors are far stiffer out of plane than AH-56.
Rigid refers to the attachment of the blade. Rigid rotor do flap by bending blades along the span under aerodynamics load. A great advantage they have there is to push further the bending point out along the blade span (a direct factor of rotorcraft stability).

images
 
Last edited:
You might be interested in the NATO paper AGARD AG 197... describes the development of a number of "hingeless" rotor systems and has a section showing the difficulty in classifying them all in a consistent manner.

Hingeless Rotorcraft Flight Dynamicsnato.inthttps://www.sto.nato.int › AGARD-AG-197

This snippet shows the author's attempts at doing so. "Rigid" isn't a used term, because of course, nothing is rigid. The ABC is a stiff in-plane, stiff-out-of-plane blade with stiff out-of-plane hingeless hub. One can see why people just use "rigid".

AGARD AG 197 Rotor Type.jpg

With respect to the AH-56, it is a stiff in plane hingeless design but the first flap frequency is around 1.13/rev, so it's still a flapping rotor. Compliance comes from the thin and wide titanium hub structure which acts as a flapping flexure... just not one with large amounts of motion. The wing and pusher propeller limit the needed flapping range of the rotor system, so the combination works well together. Few "conventional" helicopters have main rotors with as high a flapping stiffness. The Bo-105 and derivatives come to mind and of course, they're known for their acrobatic capabilities.

The AG 197 paper also describes some of the dynamics complications that can come from these stiffer configurations. Stiffness does not equal stability without some careful tuning and dynamics.
 
For the record:
There is not a single word in the GAO report that would indicate something in the likes of "rigid coaxial configurations essentially don't work".
It's all about the functional architecture, or rather the lack of detail of it:

GAO didn't discuss it in the decision because it was not included in Sikorsky's protest. GAO will only consider items protested, they will not go through every portion of the program. There is simply no way to do that in the statutory 100 days.
 
For the record:
There is not a single word in the GAO report that would indicate something in the likes of "rigid coaxial configurations essentially don't work".
It's all about the functional architecture, or rather the lack of detail of it:

GAO didn't discuss it in the decision because it was not included in Sikorsky's protest. GAO will only consider items protested, they will not go through every portion of the program. There is simply no way to do that in the statutory 100 days.
Exactly
 
I think it's very early to conclude that Sikorsky's configuration doesn't work, especially since Sikorsky seems to believe that their protest either has a chance to get them a contract or at least buy them enough time to resolve remaining problems. I don't believe Lockheed would be throwing good money after bad, even with the government funding whatever % of the work on existing contracts.

Do keep in mind the AH-56 took several years to get working correctly and had high profile setbacks worse than anything Sikorsky's prototypes have faced. Admittedly programs tended to move much faster back then but this is generally true across the entire industry.

At the end of the day it would be interesting to discover just how much of an increase in performance the X-2 configuration has over the rigid rotor, tail rotor and pusher prop setup. I suspect it won't be as high as the original estimates.
 
I think it's very early to conclude that Sikorsky's configuration doesn't work, especially since Sikorsky seems to believe that their protest either has a chance to get them a contract or at least buy them enough time to resolve remaining problems. I don't believe Lockheed would be throwing good money after bad, even with the government funding whatever % of the work on existing contracts.

Do keep in mind the AH-56 took several years to get working correctly and had high profile setbacks worse than anything Sikorsky's prototypes have faced. Admittedly programs tended to move much faster back then but this is generally true across the entire industry.

At the end of the day it would be interesting to discover just how much of an increase in performance the X-2 configuration has over the rigid rotor, tail rotor and pusher prop setup. I suspect it won't be as high as the original estimates.

The protest for FLRAA is settled and Sikorsky-Boeing lost. They've already stated they're not going to the federal claims court to pursue that possible avenue. Defiant and Defiant-X are dead. I would hope a major defense OEM wouldn't be throwing good money after bad, but I suspect it has just taken a long time to cut through the propaganda of the X-2 Mafia inside Sikorsky... some of whom have been shown the door recently.

As for the AH-56 comparison, that's another situation where a successful sub-scale demonstrator led to full scale aircraft that struggled in development. In the end, it was canceled. And the ABC/X-2 aircraft have had significant setbacks. A grand total of 5 ABC/X-2 aircraft have flown. Two crashed, one was retired after a bit more than 20 hours of flight testing, and Defiant at a bare minimum was nearly two years late and is rumored to have had significant development and mechanical problems.

I think a single main rotor helicopter with conventional tail rotor and a lift sharing wing can fly 200-220 knots, depending on power installed and technology used. Bo-105 HGH, the record setting Lynx, and Mi-24 LL PSV are examples of conventional helicopters with significantly increased cruise speed with drag cleanups, new rotor technology, lift sharing wings, or combinations of all three. AH-56 flew 215 knots but had the complexity of a third rotor system. Presumably it could go faster today with modern aerodynamics. Aside from hilariously brutal vibrations and rotor loads, the X-2 aircraft can go substantially faster with enough installed power, but drag is still drag and the configuration just isn't as aerodynamically efficient as a tilt rotor.

I contend that lift compounding is cheaper and simpler than thrust compounding (and much simpler than a coaxial rigid rotor with prop). So if lift compounded aircraft can fly a bit above 200 knots and tilt rotors own the 250+ knot plus regime due to their efficiency, that's a pretty narrow range of missions to justify a thrust compounded helicopter. The Airbus X3 configuration actually looks like it might be a good candidate in that space, though the propellor placement is tough to make safe for passengers and ground crew.
 

More info on Sikorsky's International X2 effort.

There's still some kool-aid left in the jug!
Hard to believe the Europeans would adopt an American X-2 technology aircraft instead of their own Airbus compound helicopter if they’re going to pick something slower and shorter ranged than a tiltrotor.
 
Aerospace says the first T901 flight-test engine for the U.S. Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) contest is running in a test cell at its facility in Lynn, Massachusetts, and will be delivered along with a second engine to the two competitors—Bell and Sikorsky—in the next few months.
[...]
The T901 is due to complete 1,500-hr. of ground testing before receiving a preliminary flight rating. Full qualification will be completed after an overall 5,000-hr. of planned engine run time.

 
A pretty fair assessment of the current program I think.
 
Takes two engines for this FARA party to get started. Then we can see just how ready the Bell and Sikorsky teams really are.
 
I will venture a guess that next spring we will see YouTube videos of spinning rotors for both the Bell and Sikorsky FARA prototypes. Both teams (but especially Sikorsky) will want to go into the Army Aviation annual meeting with tangible progress for all to see.
 
I will venture a guess that next spring we will see YouTube videos of spinning rotors for both the Bell and Sikorsky FARA prototypes. Both teams (but especially Sikorsky) will want to go into the Army Aviation annual meeting with tangible progress for all to see.
Could Sikorsky have started testing with T700 engines? Seems like a missed opportunity to pressure test the design… maybe not at full power or max weight but might still be useful. (Focusing perhaps on cold weather tests to get the most out of the engine)
 
Please pardon the absolutely huge number of quotes, I binged the entire thread over the last ~36 hours.

The Army names them after Indian tribes. Since FVL medium is years and years away, I doubt if anyone's even thought of that. Interestingly enough, the USN has six ships presently in service named after North American Indians or tribes, both "friendly" and "hostile". They have been a number of ships over the years so named and Chief Tecumseh (who always fought the US) was honored with having four named after him, including an SSBN.
Tecumseh was also well enough thought of shortly after the time of his death that William Tecumseh Sherman was named for him.


This illustrates the question I'm asking: prior to 2010 or so, X2 depictions showed the engines/mast in the same location as in a conventional helo. Since then, they're showing the mast assembly moved aft. Any particular reason? Pre-2010 concepts below (they're elsewhere on the forum, I just repeated 'em here for convenience).
I believe because of how huge the transmission ended up being.


We will all be pushing up daisies before the Blackhawk leaves the fleet.
And when the last Blackhawk is flown into the Boneyard, the crew will be flown back out in a Huey!


The alternative being what, exactly? There isn't anything else even vaguely plausible for the same role.

There is also the question of whether the United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, and the United States Air Force are also going to join JMR-Medium to replace their Bell UH-1 Huey, Sikorsky SH-60 Sea Hawk, and Sikorsky MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. In addition, are Defiant and Valor too large for use on United States Navy cruisers and destroyers or can they be partially dismantled to fit the dimensions of the hangers on these ships.
USN needs something that is good at the hover. I suspect it's going to be a King Seahawk, something with T901 engines that sorta looks like an H60, but doesn't share many parts with one. It's also gotta fit into existing hangars, so it's not going to be much taller than an H60.

USMC wants something that can keep up with the Osprey, which by definition means a Tilt Rotor for both Huey and Cobra replacements. V-280 variants may work, or it may take something different.

USAF CSAR will happily buy some V-280s with an inflight refueling probe.


Btw, the latest pics of the tech demonstrator's proprotors suggest that they are borrowed from the Osprey ;)

Regards, Michael
Might as well. The hubs are the complex part and we all know the Osprey hubs are solid. Blades may or may not be the same, but they're easy to swap out.



Dont get me wrong Commanche like performance and carrying as few as two scouts/pax would be game changer but a jet CAS needs to come from somewhere.
There are two separate "CAS" roles. One is the dance at the FEBA, where the A-10 plays. The other one is battlefield interdiction, and that's where the A-7s worked, as well as where the F-35s will work.


I keep wondering when they're going to get rid of swashplates.
And replace them with what?


The Marines want AURA to not only keep up with the 275-kt. MV-22 but be able to get to the landing zone ahead of the Ospreys to provide defensive support, or to divert en route to deal with an objective before catching up with the tiltrotors.

Designed for a 280-kt. cruise speed, Bell’s V-280 has exceeded 300 kt. in tests. The SB-1 is designed for at least 250 kt. but could go faster with more power. The upper limit is “certainly [faster than] 250 kt., and it is certainly less than 400,” says Randy Rotte, Boeing’s vice president of business development for FVL. “It is not so much what the configuration can do; it is how much power I put in there.”
Advantage definitely seems to be with the V280 here. Particularly the range requirements!


It gives significant increase in strategic flexibility to the US Army. To bad they don't have had C-130 with refuel capability.
That's easy, the KC-130s use buddy tanks. I'm sure there's already a few "accidentally ordered the wrong NSN" hiding back in some CONEX box...


That's a good looking Bell helo, but why the single engine? Is it an Army requirement? I'm sure there's going to be a need for a Cobra replacement in the future as well, and the Marines like their twin engines.
Marines want something fast enough to escort the Ospreys. They're not interested in the "slow" FARA offerings.



And Boeing with an interesting quote:



Ah, Open Source Industrial Intelligence.


Not to mention the military promotions depending on getting the choice right. I really like the SB-1 more for the Army's mission (More hovering, versus transit) and the V-280 for special mission and Marine/Navy missions. But, given how well the V-280 has performed, it's been virtually bulletproof, and all of the development issues with the SB-1, I have to say that I would choose the V-280 if I had to make the decision right now.
Navy spends most of their time hovering, and needs something that fits in their hangars. Marines might want V-280s.


Is that a Pusher and a anti-torque tailrotor?
Yup. Old school Cheyenne style!


Flying as a pure aeroplane is superior to rotation based lift. Unloading eliminated all retreating stall better lift. No vibration.. Symetric lift phenomenon.
Wind tunnel testing and full scale flight testing showed that rotor drag was minimized when the wings took 80% of the total lift.


Without disagreeing in the slightest with the point on folded/hangar size, there's also the issue of maintaining them on austere forward operating locations and how you manage to do any needed work on the SB>1's rotors/rotor hub - stepladder on top of a HMMWV?
That, and stepladder on top of the doghouse for the hub.

They should pitch it as a Viking replacement too. We're going to need those.
Could just pull them out of the Boneyard, they only have about half their lifespan used up.


Speed does not buy its was into the equation if you are not routinely operating at 100 miles or more. So the only place rotorcraft with much greater speed are potentially viable would be deep sea oil I think. Possibly specialised medical.
Life flight medevac strikes me as THE civilian side use case for fast helicopters.


It would be nice to have a clue how many sortie Russian helicopters are flying on a regular bases. If they are losing a helicopter for every ten sortie, that is bad. Losing one every one hundred sortie, against a well equipped and TRAINED enemy may be normal in modern war. I suspect that, like many other challenges for the aircrew, they were lucky to get ten hours of training a month, most of which was very prescriptive flights. This makes something like night combat operations impossible for them.
What was the loss rate for Hueys in Vietnam?


Of course, then the next question is, if CMV-22B is so good, why not buy more of those for the portion of the Sierra mission that tiltrotor works for (logistics, SAR/CSAR, NSW support, I'm guessing) and converge the other parts back with the Romeo replacement.
That may be a useful option, though I don't think you can stuff an Osprey into a DDG hangar. The question is how many DDGs, etc are cruising around with 1x Sierra and 1x Romeo.


Thinking more about the Italian General's comments. If the V-280 version of FLRAA goes into production there will be competion within the military and para-military market against the AW-609. While I think there would still be a market for 609, it would be reduced by another tilt rotor platform. Not happy news for one of Italy and Europes primary MIC.
When Bell sold off the 609, they included a clause that it CANNOT be used for military contracts.


The hangar size constraint seems like a tough one - and it explains the Navy's significant lack of interest in FVL. If you are doing a DDG redesign, do you build in margin for the future? As it is, the V-22 was notoriously constrained in rotor size due to the need to fit on a LHA that it only overlapped in service for about 2 years.
Now that those LHAs are out of the picture, could we add a couple of feet to the Osprey proprotors?


If they already felt rigid coax didn't work they could have specifically forbidden it from the competition at the outset.
This would have required them to know that the rigid coax didn't work when they set up the terms of the competition.


I have to wonder if the folks at Kamov rolled their eyes or tried not to "snort tea" giggling when they first heard of the revival of the ABC system in the US.
It will be interesting in the coming years to see what direction Sikorsky goes with advanced rotorcraft if Raider is not selected. They did extensive work in the past with tilt wing technology and variable diameter rotor systems.
tovarisch, vodka burns when you snort it out your nose!
 
Could Sikorsky have started testing with T700 engines? Seems like a missed opportunity to pressure test the design… maybe not at full power or max weight but might still be useful. (Focusing perhaps on cold weather tests to get the most out of the engine)
I suspect that putting the T-700 into the engine bay would still require some modifications to the deck and tubing, even though the ITEP is suppose to fit the same space.
 
I suspect that putting the T-700 into the engine bay would still require some modifications to the deck and tubing, even though the ITEP is suppose to fit the same space.
Yes, it's not a pure drop in replacement, but the more important factor is the Army would not give permission. Nor do I really believe Sikorsky was ready when the T-901 started slipping schedule. This is the Army's program and a decision like that requires their permission and doing so would put the T-901 program in more jeopardy. It didn't happen.
 
Those gull wing doors and massive fuselage opening still look ridiculous to use for weapons fire at reasonable cruise speed on an aircraft type with known serious vibration problems.
 
Instead of 3d modelling creepy looking anonymous pilots*,

1696862137775.png

I would have thought those two would have been more suited:

1696861936882.png

*Perdon me if they are your moma
 
Those gull wing doors and massive fuselage opening still look ridiculous to use for weapons fire at reasonable cruise speed on an aircraft type with known serious vibration problems.
I suspect Sikorsky worked to retain space for people in the back. If the garage doors can support three Hellfire/JAGM, a "fast rope" with a ~300 pound soldier decending off of it, should not be problematic.
One can only hope that having several years of similar sized X2 technology flying, in the form of S-97, they have fixed the vibratory issues inherent with this rotor design.
 
I suspect Sikorsky worked to retain space for people in the back. If the garage doors can support three Hellfire/JAGM, a "fast rope" with a ~300 pound soldier decending off of it, should not be problematic.
One can only hope that having several years of similar sized X2 technology flying, in the form of S-97, they have fixed the vibratory issues inherent with this rotor design.
I haven't heard a single rumor that says they solved the vibration problem well enough to put people in Raider's cabin and it was sized explicitly for 6 troop seats. If it could be done, they'd have shown video of it carrying people by now. It's past eight years since its first flight. SB>1 had vibration problems. The various explanation videos they've shown don't indicate Sikorsky has done anything fundamentally different to solve this fundamental problem with a stiff out of plane rotor.
 
I haven't heard a single rumor that says they solved the vibration problem well enough to put people in Raider's cabin and it was sized explicitly for 6 troop seats. If it could be done, they'd have shown video of it carrying people by now. It's past eight years since its first flight. SB>1 had vibration problems. The various explanation videos they've shown don't indicate Sikorsky has done anything fundamentally different to solve this fundamental problem with a stiff out of plane rotor.
What causes the vibration? Is it the blades passing each and air pressure changes between them?
 
What causes the vibration? Is it the blades passing each and air pressure changes between them?
It’s the lack of flapping compliance or hinges that causes the huge vibration. It’s fundamental to the design. While they need to have a stiff out of plane rotor system to limit flapping and keep the rotors separated during forward flight, normal once per revolution flapping isn’t the only out of plane motion a blade wants to go through. There are twice per revolution, thrice per revolution, and so forth and so on motions that the blades want to go through due to harmonic air loads. As the harmonic number increases, the magnitude of motion/load generally decreases. Not having a flap hinge means these motions turn into vibratory load and get transformed into airframe vibrations based on the number of blades. So a four bladed rotor has four per revolution vibrations in the airframe.

This is actually why Raider and Raider-X have four blades per rotor… this was an attempt to improve the horrific vibrations of the XH-59A which had 3 bladed stiff out of plane rotors. That aircraft shook so badly pilots had trouble reading the instruments. Adding a blade raises the frequency of vibration and reduces the magnitude. Better would be 5 or 6 blades at the expense of weight, cost, and drag… if the ever more slender blades can be made stiff enough to keep from intermeshing.

All edgewise flow rotors see an infinite expansion of harmonic air loads (though with generally decreasing magnitude). The interaction of the two rotors can certainly make them larger, but a rotor in isolation will also experience harmonic loads. This is why rotor designers must tune the rotor system to not amplify these loads, or do so as little as practical. Good tuning doesn’t make the problem go away, but it does keep them from getting amplified.
 
It’s the lack of flapping compliance or hinges that causes the huge vibration. It’s fundamental to the design. While they need to have a stiff out of plane rotor system to limit flapping and keep the rotors separated during forward flight, normal once per revolution flapping isn’t the only out of plane motion a blade wants to go through. There are twice per revolution, thrice per revolution, and so forth and so on motions that the blades want to go through due to harmonic air loads. As the harmonic number increases, the magnitude of motion/load generally decreases. Not having a flap hinge means these motions turn into vibratory load and get transformed into airframe vibrations based on the number of blades. So a four bladed rotor has four per revolution vibrations in the airframe.

This is actually why Raider and Raider-X have four blades per rotor… this was an attempt to improve the horrific vibrations of the XH-59A which had 3 bladed stiff out of plane rotors. That aircraft shook so badly pilots had trouble reading the instruments. Adding a blade raises the frequency of vibration and reduces the magnitude. Better would be 5 or 6 blades at the expense of weight, cost, and drag… if the ever more slender blades can be made stiff enough to keep from intermeshing.

All edgewise flow rotors see an infinite expansion of harmonic air loads (though with generally decreasing magnitude). The interaction of the two rotors can certainly make them larger, but a rotor in isolation will also experience harmonic loads. This is why rotor designers must tune the rotor system to not amplify these loads, or do so as little as practical. Good tuning doesn’t make the problem go away, but it does keep them from getting amplified.
The AH-56 also had a stiff, hingeless rotor, and I don't recall hearing it had an issue with vibration.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom