Next-Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC)

[fightingirish]

Please notice the mock-up around here.

The Insane Capabilities for Future Combat Helicopters | NATO NGRC
Not too long ago, countries in NATO launched a new project (NGRC) to develop the helicopter of the future. Included are impressive, borderline ludicrous requirements, in order to really push for that "next big milestone". In this video I will provide insights on NGRC and also show you a really impressive flight demonstration of one of the three main contenders - the X-2 concept of Sikorsky!
Big thank you to all of you who have supported me to get to the point where I can get such access, it continuously impresses me what this community is able to achieve. I have also asked Sikorsky if any of you have questions on their design, that we could make a follow up sometime in the future. So ask away and let's try to get your questions answered directly from the source. [...]

Full Video:

View: https://youtu.be/BTP5-Nh3ir0?si=wy2qmOoP_Q2ukz-z
Link:

https://youtu.be/BTP5-Nh3ir0?si=wy2qmOoP_Q2ukz-z

 

[kqcke for you]

I wonder if there's also a "mild hybrid" option, which would be a conventional helicopter with only some Racer features to improve range and fly at 180-200kts? e.g.

• Include an optional box wing kit to increase lift and range. This also would have other benefits like providing attachment points for weapons. Make it detachable for easier air transportability.
• Retain Racer's low drag rotor hub (which also provides some useful lift augmentation)
• Other aerodynamic tweaks... assymetric tail boom and H160-style biplane stabilizer
• Ecomode on 1 engine for long range cruise at 120-140kts
• Include all the latest innovations in materials... composite fuselage, lightweight windshield, replace hydraulics with electric (e.g. landing gear mechanism) etc

But ditch Racer's complex lateral propellers and shaft lines, retaining a conventional tail rotor instead?

Time for the ultimate H-145M for the BW. Give it its Pioneerlab hybrid system and we got an worthy Tiger replacement xD

 

[yasotay]

How are tilt-rotors still an adventure in Europe?

I apologize for not being more precise in my language. I intended my "adventure" comment toward Airbus. Clearly Leonardo is looking toward tilt rotor, if for no other reason than to capitalize on the decades long 609 (mis)adventure.

 

[H_K]

Clearly Leonardo is looking toward tilt rotor, if for no other reason than to capitalize on the decades long 609 (mis)adventure.

And they have very little to show for it so far, with AW609 certification not likely till next year.

AW609 inches closer to certification with start of type-inspection flights

Federal Aviation Administration pilots have begun Type Inspection Authorization flights of the Leonardo Helicopters AW609 tiltrotor from the manufacturer's US plant in Philadelphia.

www.flightglobal.com

Leonardo's other tilt-rotor venture, the NGCTR demonstrator, is hardly better... late and rather disappointing in its technical scope with only some small technology improvements relative to AW609 (vs what was originally billed as a new 19-22 pax transport opening up new O&G and city-to-city markets). NGCTR's first flight has been pushed (again) to later this year, once they fix the flight control software (which is probably quite complex on a tilt rotor?).

 

[yasotay]

I suspect that Fly By Wire is a challenge for all of the OEM. Does Airbus have a fielded Fly By Wire helicopter on the market? I don't know. I do suspect that Airbus has more experience with Fly By Wire than Leonardo. I do recall that Bell Flight has contended with the complexity in their 525 program, which has also seen delay. I suspect that Leonardo is using AW-609/NGRC as a means to burn down risk for the larger tilt rotor design. There may also be some investor concern on how profitable the larger Clear Skys effort will be, given how mature the infrastructure of Europe is. If Leonardo can keep cost down the capability to move more people in areas of less developed infrastructure (Africa, South Pacific, Central Asia) it might be very viable.

Cost sensitivity will be as significant for NGRC as any other program.

 

[H_K]

I suspect that Fly By Wire is a challenge for all of the OEM. Does Airbus have a fielded Fly By Wire helicopter on the market? I don't know. I do suspect that Airbus has more experience with Fly By Wire than Leonardo.

For NGCTR the FBW system apparently is extra complex due to the tilting nacelles, morphing wing elements (moving flaps) and V-tail. They've fitted an ejection seat (!) for the test pilot... which says something IMHO.

I believe AH's fly-by-wire experience is mostly from the NH90 program. The FBW system was outsourced to Liebherr in Germany and Goodrich Actuation Systems in France (formerly SAMM - Société d'applications des machines motrices).

Details on the NH90's fly by wire in the paper below:

Electrical Flight Control Technologies for Rotorcraft

https://dspace-erf.nlr.nl/server/api/core/bitstreams/a10d53de-e27c-46ac-8767-e207cf2b357b/content

 

[yasotay]

For NGCTR the FBW system apparently is extra complex due to the tilting nacelles, morphing wing elements (moving flaps) and V-tail. They've fitted an ejection seat (!) for the test pilot... which says something IMHO.

I expect the complexity is why Leonardo has teamed with the Bell Flight on the program. If my memory is correct Leonardo has elected to only rotate the nacelle components associated with the prop rotors to reduce the complexity for NGRC. Not surprising there has been a significant body of work done on tilt rotor by Bell and the U.S. Government.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And they have very little to show for it so far, with AW609 certification not likely till next year.

As if the regulators don't keep adding "just one more thing" that they have to prove before they'll allow certification, and haven't been doing so for the last 20 years.

I suspect that the 609 will be "just one more year" from certification in 2078, when I would turn 100.

I suspect that Leonardo is using AW-609/NGRC as a means to burn down risk for the larger tilt rotor design.

I think that the Osprey is the point where tilt-rotors stop making sense as an aircraft type. Though maybe if the Osprey had kept the original rotor diameter instead of the reduced diameter the USN demanded...

 

[yasotay]

I can only hope that the Congressional delegation from Pennsylvania and wherever P&W is making engines will apply pressure to the FAA to get on with it. Perhaps it would help if Leonardo painted "Extract Digit!" on the roof of the hangar. *


* With regards to my UK and Commonwealth comrades.