Sikorsky X-Wing Projects

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Here's a few of the fascinating X Wing designs by Sikorsky.

 

[Antonio]

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.

 

[Dronte]

Another two.
The second image corresponds to a comparative outline among a conventional engine TF34 and a "convertible" modified version devised for the propulsion of airships of this type.

 

[boxkite]

Paul, are you sure this one is a Sikorsky proposal? I know this from Interavia 7/1983, described as a Boeing-Vertol concept (however using the Sikorsky X-wing!).

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Not sure, no. I thought Sikorsky had the patent on X-wing, so I just assumed I think.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

and anther Sikorsky-Boeing Vertol X-wing project.
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1982/1982%20-%200655.pdf

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the Sikorsky X-wing aircraft with a fans in the wings.
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1986/1986%20-%201771.pdf

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Slightly better

 

[theponja]

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".

 

[Justo Miranda]

I found this drawing

 

[yasotay]

Actually its all impressions ;D

I remember some Army aviators asking pointed questions about low and slow stuff and getting blank looks from the engineers.

 

[Zactoman]

Here is a desktop model from Sikorsky.
It was unpainted resin when I received it. I had some fun and made up a scheme.
Hopefully I'll finish it up one of these days...

Cheers, Chris

 

[Orionblamblam]

A lot of info about Sikorsky X-Wing projects in last APR issue...

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.

 

[Jemiba]

Can't tell if this design from Aviation Week 9/1977 is just an example, what
an X-wing aircraft could look like, or if it was a real project, no company is
mentioned in the caption.

 

[F-14D]

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.

 

[amsci99]

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]

Can't tell if this design from Aviation Week 9/1977 is just an example, what
an X-wing aircraft could look like, or if it was a real project, no company is
mentioned in the caption.

Better /or color/ picture

 

[F-14D]

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.

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.

 

[amsci99]

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.

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,

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.

 

[F-14D]

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.

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,

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.

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.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the Sikorsky X-wing aircraft with a fans in the wings.
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1986/1986%20-%201771.pdf

Hi,
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880008220_1988008220.pdf

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Slightly clearer copy of pic. Nice find Hesham.

 

[Wembley]

I read somewhere ages ago that there was a Black Sikorsky X-wing project which was much bigger than the official one -- but I've never seen anything to back this.
Anyone else heard of this, or was it a myth?

 

[quellish]

I read somewhere ages ago that there was a Black Sikorsky X-wing project which was much bigger than the official one -- but I've never seen anything to back this.
Anyone else heard of this, or was it a myth?

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.

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dear Overscan,

and here is a big ABC X-wing projects.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19830026673_1983026673.pdf

 

[Orionblamblam]

Slightly clearer copy of pic.

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

 

[Remko]

Slightly clearer copy of pic.

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

Exactly the reason why I have emailed Scott to order this volume!! ;D

Man, I love that Naval program. Just imagine if that would have been LAMPS 3 instead of the H-60 'Hawk' series.

 

[Orionblamblam]

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...

 

[quellish]

Slightly clearer copy of pic.

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

If Figure 14 and SENIOR PROM had a shotgun wedding... they would have to raise the offspring in the desert.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880002262_1988002262.pdf

 

[hesham]

Hi,

and anther Sikorsky-Boeing Vertol X-wing project.
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1982/1982%20-%200655.pdf

And from NASA;
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890001501_1989001501.pdf

 

[Charles Gray]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Catch-22]

Seaplane X-wing

www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA035344

 

[xstatic3000]

Slightly clearer copy of pic.

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

If Figure 14 and SENIOR PROM had a shotgun wedding... they would have to raise the offspring in the desert.

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:

 

[mil]

Whether Orionblamblam greetings are possibility to lay out still pictures of projects Sikorsky X-Wing Projects of high quality from http:// www.up-ship.com/eAPR/index.htm#V5N6

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the Sikorsky X-wing Model.

http://archive.liveauctioneers.com/archive4/lloydralstontoys/23541/0261_1_lg.jpg

 

[Orionblamblam]

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

 

[F-14D]

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

Probably flies as well as the real one would have, too.

 

[Stargazer]

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

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.

 

[AeroFranz]

Looks like there are two intakes on the right side...somebody refresh my memory, but why does it need this arrangement?