Sikorsky X2 family

[sferrin]

There are no major components common between the 53K and 53E. They even managed to expand the cabin. Hard to see how it is not a new helicopter. The limitations that remain are mainly to do with the need to fit in an LHD hangar.

I would be astonished if there were anything other than standard fasteners, sealant, etc. that were common between the two. Structurally they are completely different.

 

[jsport]

There are no major components common between the 53K and 53E. They even managed to expand the cabin. Hard to see how it is not a new helicopter. The limitations that remain are mainly to do with the need to fit in an LHD hangar.

and the tail rotor assists lift and forward motion how then? It is still called a 53.

 

[sferrin]

There are no major components common between the 53K and 53E. They even managed to expand the cabin. Hard to see how it is not a new helicopter. The limitations that remain are mainly to do with the need to fit in an LHD hangar.

and the tail rotor assists lift and forward motion how then? It is still called a 53.

A Super Hornet is called an 18. Do you think an F/A-18C is the same as an F/A-18E?

 

[TomS]

and the tail rotor assists lift and forward motion how then? It is still called a 53.

Don't confuse the issue. The K is a new helicopter. It's not revolutionary, but the current state of the art wasn't ready to produce a revolutionary helicopter of this size now, when it is needed. The Marines can't wait to replace the Es until something like a heavy-lift X2 might be possible (Assuming it ever will be worth the effort. If the smaller X2 designs are any guide, the installed power in a heavy lift version would be massive.)

 

[yasotay]

VERY massive.

 

[jsport]

It's worth remembering that a year or two ago that Sikorsky itself said that X2 technology wouldn't scale up to the heavy lift category. If one looks back over this and similar topics, you'll see the discussions about the space needed for the mast and transmission it is apparent why they would say this.

Even if that situation didn't exist, any FVL heavy wouldn't come on line for at least another 20 years. USMC has to have something a lot sooner than that, as do other potential customers. So the timeframe alone dictates that CH-53K (which is a new helicopter that only has the shape of the earlier CH-53).

Understand the K is a quite radical improvement, but believe it is stretching it to call it new and serious inefficiencies are not eliminated. Something like x2 is new but yes it seems not on the horizon. Again the gov is going to have to assume the risk of any tangible improvement.

Understand the K is a quite radical improvement, but believe it is stretching it to call it new and serious inefficiencies are not eliminated. Something like x2 is new but yes it seems not on the horizon. Again the gov is going to have to assume the risk of any tangible improvement.

ditto and ditto again

 

[sferrin]

Understand the K is a quite radical improvement, but believe it is stretching it to call it new.

That's because you're not familiar with either the E or K. Sorry to be blunt but there's no other way to put it. "Touchy feely" subjective opinion isn't what determines what is "new". The fact that it is completely different is what does. Doesn't matter if the design still has "deficiencies" or if it's even worse than the previous iteration. It is completely different, built to a NEW design, and therefore it is new. If you wish to continue to wallow in ignorance that's obviously your prerogative. Just don't be surprised when people continue to correct you.

 

[F-14D]

sferrin has it exactly right. It's called a 53K for similar reasons why the Super Bug is called the -18E/F. It makes the program more slable if you call it a modification rather than a new start.

 

[jsport]

There are no major components common between the 53K and 53E. They even managed to expand the cabin. Hard to see how it is not a new helicopter. The limitations that remain are mainly to do with the need to fit in an LHD hangar.

and the tail rotor assists lift and forward motion how then? It is still called a 53.

and the tail rotor assists lift and forward motion how then? It is still called a 53. and its still not carry light tanks either.

ditto and ditto again.

 

[seruriermarshal]

Sikorsky X2 ;D

 

[seruriermarshal]

Sikorsky X2 ;D

 

[seruriermarshal]

Sikorsky X2 ;D

 

[seruriermarshal]

Sikorsky X2

 

[yasotay]

Brilliant pictures! Thank You. Hoping to see the Demonstrator in its new digs in the coming weeks.

 

[seruriermarshal]

More Pics ;D

 

[seruriermarshal]

More Pics

 

[Triton]

Published on Apr 10, 2017

Designed for speed, maneuverability and scalability, X2 Technology™ is the foundation for Lockheed Martin’s support to Future Vertical Lift. Sikorsky has invested in and proven X2 Technology™ to illustrate its commitment to developing future capabilities that are achievable and affordable for both military and commercial applications. Learn more: http://lmt.co/2o0OJQK

https://youtu.be/8iIdPbLNItU

 

[Triton]

"Sikorsky's new product search narrows to concepts over 5t"
28 February, 2018 SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com BY: Stephen Trimble Las Vegas

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sikorskys-new-product-search-narrows-to-concepts-ov-446309/

Sikorsky’s ongoing pursuit of its next civil rotorcraft has narrowed to concepts in a size class over 4.5t (10,000lb), further distancing the Lockheed Martin company from the light helicopter market after it disposed of the Schweizer brand earlier this year.

The sizing strategy is driven by Sikorsky’s view that its resources and skills are best applied to large and complex rotorcraft systems, says Dana Fiatarone, Sikorsky’s vice-president of commercial systems and services.

“We’re probably going to be north of 10,000lb in the development programme,” Fiatarone says, speaking to journalists on 27 February.

Market stagnation has stifled new product launches in the commercial helicopter industry for several years, but companies are continuing to make investments in anticipation of an eventual recovery.

Bell chief executive Mitch Snyder acknowledged an ongoing development project for a new commercial aircraft during his press conference at the Heli-Expo convention, but declined to provide any details.

Sikorsky has indicated its interest in replacing or supplementing its two flagship commercial products – the 5t-class S-76 and 12t S-92 – for several years. But Fiatarone says that Sikorsky refuses to launch a “me-too” product for the commercial market, meaning that the company wants to look beyond conventional helicopter approaches to speed and cockpit automation. This is a comment that has been often heard from executives in recent times.

For a decade, the company has been developing high-speed rotorcraft for the military, designed around a coaxial rotor system with a pusher propeller for forward thrust – beginning with the Collier Trophy-winning X2 demonstrator.

“I would expect us to take a look at that. I like the idea of X2 technology,” Fiatarone says. “I can see us having a conversation where it makes sense to have some type of that technology going forward.”

Meanwhile, Sikorsky continues to work on the X2’s successors for the military – the S-97 Raider prototype and a collaboration with Boeing on the SB-1 Defiant.

Sikorsky expects to have the S-97 Raider back in flight testing in late March or early April, following a hard landing last year that damaged a prototype aircraft, Sikorsky chief executive Dan Schultz says. The SB-1 was originally scheduled to fly last year as part of a demonstration for the US Army, but remains in assembly with no announced timeline for first flight.

Sikorsky still has a “bunch of things left to do with Boeing”, Schultz says, without elaborating. The company is also waiting for a gearbox delivery from Northstar, he adds. “We’re still not there yet.[\quote]

 

[turboshaft]

Chinese copy & pasta VUAS concept unveiled at Zhuhai this week, based on the S-97's original 6-blade MR / 5-blade proprotor configuration.

Air Show China 2018: ZHZ introduces new TD15 high-speed unmanned helicopter
China to develop unmanned variant of Sikorsky S-97 Raider

 

[sferrin]

Chinese copy & pasta VUAS concept unveiled at Zhuhai this week, based on the S-97's original 6-blade MR / 5-blade proprotor configuration.

Air Show China 2018: ZHZ introduces new TD15 high-speed unmanned helicopter
China to develop unmanned variant of Sikorsky S-97 Raider

China doesn't copy. You take that back.

 

[turboshaft]

China doesn't copy. You take that back.

My apologies. "Radical new Chinese copy & pasta VUAS concept with entirely groundbreaking intellectual property unveiled at Zhuhai this week, clearly superior to based on the S-97's, whose original and now clearly copyright-impinging 6-blade MR / 5-blade proprotor configuration was preemptively ditched for what is clearly a far inferior 8-blade MR / 6-blade proprotor configuration. We apologize for the fault in the previous post. Those responsible have been sacked."

 

[TomcatViP]

The landing gear looks like the one from DARPA for landing operation on uneven terrain.

 

[sferrin]

China doesn't copy. You take that back.

My apologies. "Radical new Chinese copy & pasta VUAS concept with entirely groundbreaking intellectual property unveiled at Zhuhai this week, clearly superior to based on the S-97's, whose original and now clearly copyright-impinging 6-blade MR / 5-blade proprotor configuration was preemptively ditched for what is clearly a far inferior 8-blade MR / 6-blade proprotor configuration. We apologize for the fault in the previous post. Those responsible have been sacked."

Much more acceptable.

 

[flateric]

Alan Bristow Memorial Lecture 2019

Fast Rotorcraft, Emerging Capabilities and X2 Technology

www.aerosociety.com

 

[Mark Nankivil]

The landing gear looks like the one from DARPA for landing operation on uneven terrain.

Looking at that gear, there goes the mission payload...

First time I have seen a helicopter work out and loosen up before the mission!

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[yasotay]

Georgia Tech is also working on a similar concept.

 

[flateric]

Georgia Tech is also working on a similar concept.

That's the same DARPA robotic landing gear program. They work on a grant from agency.

 

[yasotay]

As seen at the Georgia Tech booth at Army Aviation meeting. Wonder how much of the useful load it takes up?

 

[jsport]

As seen at the Georgia Tech booth at Army Aviation meeting. Wonder how much of the useful load it takes up?

is something in particular going on w/ that strange landing gear?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Primarily intended for mountainous terrain and the like, I believe.

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1263107284508577792

 

[Zz_Boikas]

Link to Sikorsky video of "X2 Technology Future Applications":

View: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d9qzn_sikorsky-x2-technology-commercial-applications_tech

HI!
If you have this videos please send for me.

 

[flateric]

HI!
If you have this videos please send for me.

Sikorsky X2 Technology Commercial Applications.mp4

Посмотреть и скачать с Яндекс Диска

disk.yandex.ru

 

[yasotay]

Well they better figure out how to "Flat Pack" the transmission for X2 to make those "S-76'esque" X2 in the video work.

 

[RavenOne]

Sikorsky Eyes Commercial Future For X2 Co-Axial Helicopter Tech | Aviation Week Network

Sikorsky is looking ahead to applying its X2 coaxial rigid-rotor compound helicopter technology to commercial aircraft.

aviationweek.com

cheers

 

[yasotay]

Not surprising given the huge investment in the technology.

 

[H_K]

Going to be tough for Sikorsky to succeed… I suspect Leonardo (AW609) and Airbus (Racer) will corner the market for high speed VTOL.

 

[Moose]

Racer is still substantially behind schedule and is a demonstrator, not a production aircraft. If Sikorsky is able to get a viable commercial design in the air in a good amount of time, there's no reason they couldn't compete for and win market share the same way they do in other rotorcraft segments.

Not surprising given the huge investment in the technology.

It's only surprising after they recently took a stance against commerical X2 products. But things change, and that may have been part of their FLRAA marketing campy so who knows

 

[VTOLicious]

Racer is still substantially behind schedule and is a demonstrator, not a production aircraft. If Sikorsky is able to get a viable commercial design in the air in a good amount of time, there's no reason they couldn't compete for and win market share the same way they do in other rotorcraft segments.

...

Racer isn't a production aircraft, but I would rather call it a prototype. I contrast, X³ was a pure technology demonstrator.

 

[yasotay]

While perusing the Student Design proposals at the vertical flight society from last year, I noticed the attached in one of the slides on down select criterion for the University of Maryland team. Given their close relations with Sikorsky I am assuming it is a swoopy proposal for a civil X2. Most likely from the UofM students, but possibly a Sikorsky concept.