Kamov Projects

Deino said:
Hmmm ??? Intersting as it looks remarkable like a Sikorsky S-92 with typical Kamov features !

Thanks for posting,
Deino
.... or like a Sikorsky S-92 with Sikorsky X2 features ! ;) ;D

I just noticed the pusher propeller at the tail.
 
As in... ;D
 

Attachments

  • x2_assault.jpg
    x2_assault.jpg
    14.9 KB · Views: 776
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'.
 
Just found at the Keymags-forum posted by "Otaku".

CHeers, Deino
 

Attachments

  • Ka-92 small.jpg
    Ka-92 small.jpg
    174.1 KB · Views: 763
Interestingly that Russian edition didn't have bottom model photo at all...
 
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).
 

Attachments

  • KA-92.jpg
    KA-92.jpg
    78 KB · Views: 605
New, slightly (or highly?) mutated iteration of Ka-92

All pics courtesy Muxel (c)
 

Attachments

  • Image_061.JPG
    Image_061.JPG
    92.8 KB · Views: 306
  • Image_060.JPG
    Image_060.JPG
    96.8 KB · Views: 272
  • Image_058.JPG
    Image_058.JPG
    95.3 KB · Views: 289
  • Image_057.JPG
    Image_057.JPG
    99.9 KB · Views: 281
  • Image_010.JPG
    Image_010.JPG
    92.3 KB · Views: 350
  • Image_007.JPG
    Image_007.JPG
    84.2 KB · Views: 408
  • Image_004.JPG
    Image_004.JPG
    84 KB · Views: 458
  • Image_002.JPG
    Image_002.JPG
    96.4 KB · Views: 438
Kamov OKB Chief Designer Mikheev comparing X1 to Ka-92

All pics courtesy Muxel (c)
 

Attachments

  • Image_056.JPG
    Image_056.JPG
    60.8 KB · Views: 188
  • Image_033.JPG
    Image_033.JPG
    77.8 KB · Views: 192
  • Image_026.JPG
    Image_026.JPG
    81.9 KB · Views: 179
  • Image_022.JPG
    Image_022.JPG
    79.8 KB · Views: 180
  • Image_021.JPG
    Image_021.JPG
    80.8 KB · Views: 183
  • Image_018.JPG
    Image_018.JPG
    79.2 KB · Views: 188
  • Image_008.JPG
    Image_008.JPG
    95.1 KB · Views: 191
Mikheev posing to flateric and muxel near Ka-92 at Day 2, day of Kamov OKB 60th jubilee. Really awesome person, you can feel it.
Meantime, Petr Butowski crouches closer to Kamov guy to record his spoken presentation on Ka-62 CAR variant.
 

Attachments

  • P1070305s.jpg
    P1070305s.jpg
    127.8 KB · Views: 171
  • P1070266s.jpg
    P1070266s.jpg
    134.2 KB · Views: 186
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.
 
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..
 
Very clear lines of the upgraded Ka-92 design. It's looking really nice. (As a passenger I would prefer to sit on the board side due to the large panorama window in Image_002.JPG ;D .)
 
Sergey Sikorsky was attending HeliRussia on the Day 1, btw...
 
flateric said:
Sergey Sikorsky was attending HeliRussia on the Day 1, btw...

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.
 
flateric said:
Meantime, Petr Butowski crouches closer to Kamov guy to record his spoken presentation on Ka-62 CAR variant.

I would crouch a bit closer as well.

Is there any truth in the 200 unit Indian order or the 60 unit Russian order for the Ka-62?
 
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
 
Thought I would add Ka-92 model shots from Farnborough 2008. Same model, but a few different angles I hope.
 

Attachments

  • Farnborough 2008 156.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 156.jpg
    109.8 KB · Views: 323
  • Farnborough 2008 157.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 157.jpg
    81.4 KB · Views: 288
  • Farnborough 2008 158.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 158.jpg
    98 KB · Views: 284
  • Farnborough 2008 159.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 159.jpg
    96.8 KB · Views: 293
  • Farnborough 2008 162.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 162.jpg
    103.2 KB · Views: 300
It's hard to tell from the photos, but would the tail rotor's ground clearance be high enough to allow a rear entry ramp?
 
Gavin said:
It's hard to tell from the photos, but would the tail rotor's ground clearance be high enough to allow a rear entry ramp?

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.
 
yasotay said:
Gavin said:
It's hard to tell from the photos, but would the tail rotor's ground clearance be high enough to allow a rear entry ramp?

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.

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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
flateric said:
Kamov old man: Oh, yes (rotating pusher) - and we can stop it in this position - do you see, yes?
Me: Err...yes...

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?
 
Gavin said:
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but I didn't notice: How does the top speed compare to the Osprey's?

Ka-92 - 227-243 kts cruising speed
V-22 Osprey - Max speed, SL, 250 kts (Boeing IS site) (250-300 kt (Boeing V-22 backgrounder from the same site))
 
Three steps of the evolution of the Ka-92, based on photos and
information from flateric and Mike Hirschberg:
 

Attachments

  • Ka-92_03.GIF
    Ka-92_03.GIF
    76.1 KB · Views: 534
  • KA-92_02.GIF
    KA-92_02.GIF
    176.8 KB · Views: 511
  • Ka-92_01.GIF
    Ka-92_01.GIF
    217.4 KB · Views: 524

Attachments

  • 48684A19BD92E4D63.jpg
    48684A19BD92E4D63.jpg
    95.7 KB · Views: 222
  • 29664A19BD9107BC6.jpg
    29664A19BD9107BC6.jpg
    61.8 KB · Views: 189
  • 146804A19BD8DD09EF.jpg
    146804A19BD8DD09EF.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 177
  • 278504A19BD89CAF7E.jpg
    278504A19BD89CAF7E.jpg
    78.6 KB · Views: 181
  • 251964A19BD87ACC64.jpg
    251964A19BD87ACC64.jpg
    72.3 KB · Views: 225
Do we know any more about which of the advanced rotorcraft concepts Russia will move forward?
 
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
 
flateric said:
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

Unfortunate, both appear to have significant market potential.
 
flateric said:
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?

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.
 
Well, Abe, there was some humor in my posting:)
 
Final choice for Prospective High-speed Helicopter candidate is due first or second quarter 2010
 
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?
 
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8750.0/highlight,ka-102.html
 
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.
 
Ka-102 is offered as alternative to Ka-92 for a ...well, 'contest'
 
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

  • Ka-92_Safety.png
    Ka-92_Safety.png
    41.8 KB · Views: 479

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom