Sikorsky X2 family

[F-14D]

I propose here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1309.msg28164.html#new

I have posted the pre/early-JVX story at that location

 

[yasotay]

Has anyone seen a photo of the recently unveiled X-2 Tech Demonstrator? Understand it was introduced at the Houston Heli-Expo.

 

[F-14D]

Has anyone seen a photo of the recently unveiled X-2 Tech Demonstrator? Understand it was introduced at the Houston Heli-Expo.

Sikorsky unveiled their X2 demonstrator February 24th. at the 2008 Heli-Expo. Although over a year behind schedule, Sikorsky still isn't committing to a first flight date, only stating that first flight will be, "as soon as we are ready to fly. We are chomping at the bit to get airborne,". They are openly taking shots at Tilt-Rotor, and say they'll be discussing commercial plans next year.


I'm including a shot of the contra-rotating pusher propeller on the X2

 

[yasotay]

Two things immediately come to mind looking at the photo. First it will be interesting to see what effect the rotor wake has on the prop. Second one is that the un-protected fan is going to provide ample safety hazard, at least for military operations, both to the aircraft in the air (flying NOE) and on the ground with soldiers operating around the aircraft. Hopefully down the road they will consider "ducting" the thruster as a minimum for the considerations listed above.

I wonder if ducting the prop would mitigate any turbulence issues from the rotor.

 

[dragon72]

There's probably 2 reasons for no ducting. Firstly this a tech demonstrator so NOE and safety issues aren't that important. The second reason, and probably most important, is that adding a ducted rotor adds weight and cost.Since it seems Sikorsky is picking up the bill for this they'd want to save as much money as possible.

Personally I think a ducted rotor is essential for any low flying helicopter with a prop but for a tech demonstrator it isn't necessary.

Also given Americas crazy patent laws they might not have the rights to make a ducted rotor.

 

[yasotay]

There's probably 2 reasons for no ducting. Firstly this a tech demonstrator so NOE and safety issues aren't that important. The second reason, and probably most important, is that adding a ducted rotor adds weight and cost.Since it seems Sikorsky is picking up the bill for this they'd want to save as much money as possible.

Personally I think a ducted rotor is essential for any low flying helicopter with a prop but for a tech demonstrator it isn't necessary.

Also given Americas crazy patent laws they might not have the rights to make a ducted rotor.

Point taken on the cost and weight factor for it being a demonstrator. While I agree with your comment on the patent laws, considering all of the ducted fan work that Sikorsky did in their ABC work and early LHX (a.k.a. Comanche), which had a ducted thruster, I suspect that they could whip up a proprietary fan without too much difficulty. Of course to do so would throw the CG of the X-2TD out and they would have to add weight to the front of the airframe, etc.

 

[F-14D]

There's probably 2 reasons for no ducting. Firstly this a tech demonstrator so NOE and safety issues aren't that important. The second reason, and probably most important, is that adding a ducted rotor adds weight and cost.Since it seems Sikorsky is picking up the bill for this they'd want to save as much money as possible.

Personally I think a ducted rotor is essential for any low flying helicopter with a prop but for a tech demonstrator it isn't necessary.

Also given Americas crazy patent laws they might not have the rights to make a ducted rotor.

Point taken on the cost and weight factor for it being a demonstrator. While I agree with your comment on the patent laws, considering all of the ducted fan work that Sikorsky did in their ABC work and early LHX (a.k.a. Comanche), which had a ducted thruster, I suspect that they could whip up a proprietary fan without too much difficulty. Of course to do so would throw the CG of the X-2TD out and they would have to add weight to the front of the airframe, etc.

The original ABC demonstrator, the XH-59A, did not have a ducted thruster. It actually had a tail that resembled that of the XV-15, and no tail rotor, the contrarotating rotor eliminating the need for any anti-torque. While it showed that the ABC concept worked, it also wasn't significantly faster than a conventional helicopter. It became apparent that for ABC to achieve speeds much higher, the ABC portion could allow a rotor to move faster through the air, but the rotor itself did not provide any meaningful speed increase. Some form of auxiliary propulsion was needed to actually get the speed up. After the first unit crashed, the second was fitted with a pair of J60 jets and it was this one, with the jets furiously thrusting, that achieved the speed results in the history books. Of course, endurance and range was poor with those two engines converting large amounts of fuel to heat and noise. Here's a picture of the second XH-59A. Since then, all ABC concepts looking for higher speed have featured some form of auxiliary propulsion beyond the rotor, including the X2.

On the RAH-66, that wasn't so much a ducted thruster as an advanced technology shrouded tail rotor (a concept actually pioneered by France).

 

[fightingirish]

Sikorsky unveils its highly anticipated X2 demonstrator and says it will make its first flight when it's ready.

Video:
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1430856640&channel=1370936910

 

[yasotay]

There's probably 2 reasons for no ducting. Firstly this a tech demonstrator so NOE and safety issues aren't that important. The second reason, and probably most important, is that adding a ducted rotor adds weight and cost.Since it seems Sikorsky is picking up the bill for this they'd want to save as much money as possible.

Personally I think a ducted rotor is essential for any low flying helicopter with a prop but for a tech demonstrator it isn't necessary.

Also given Americas crazy patent laws they might not have the rights to make a ducted rotor.

Point taken on the cost and weight factor for it being a demonstrator. While I agree with your comment on the patent laws, considering all of the ducted fan work that Sikorsky did in their ABC work and early LHX (a.k.a. Comanche), which had a ducted thruster, I suspect that they could whip up a proprietary fan without too much difficulty. Of course to do so would throw the CG of the X-2TD out and they would have to add weight to the front of the airframe, etc.

The original ABC demonstrator, the XH-59A, did not have a ducted thruster. It actually had a tail that resembled that of the XV-15, and no tail rotor, the contrarotating rotor eliminating the need for any anti-torque. While it showed that the ABC concept worked, it also wasn't significantly faster than a conventional helicopter. It became apparent that for ABC to achieve speeds much higher, the ABC portion could allow a rotor to move faster through the air, but the rotor itself did not provide any meaningful speed increase. Some form of auxiliary propulsion was needed to actually get the speed up. After the first unit crashed, the second was fitted with a pair of J60 jets and it was this one, with the jets furiously thrusting, that achieved the speed results in the history books. Of course, endurance and range was poor with those two engines converting large amounts of fuel to heat and noise. Here's a picture of the second XH-59A. Since then, all ABC concepts looking for higher speed have featured some form of auxiliary propulsion beyond the rotor, including the X2.

On the RAH-66, that wasn't so much a ducted thruster as an advanced technology shrouded tail rotor (a concept actually pioneered by France).

Actually the early Sikorsky LHX efforts had a rear mounted ducted fan thruster, since J60's destroyed any notion of endurance. I will have to try and get a picture of the Sikorsky LHX model at work.

 

[amsci99]

Don't seem to see the proposed fairing between the 2 hubs in the video on the launch of the X2. Still in development or a 'no-show' for the competition?

 

[dragon72]

I actually found an illustration of the XH-59B in 'Warplanes of the future' by Bill Gunston. If I only had a scanner.

Also here's the pictures of the ducted prop LHX

 

[yasotay]

dragon 72 - thanks those were pictures I was looking for. Allow me to reciprocate-

 

[F-14D]

It's clear that any application of ABC technology is going to require some form of auxiliary propulsion to get above regular rotor speeds. In the case of the XH-59A, the J60s were an expedient to get to high speed after the first demonstrator was able to demonstrate the concept, but not high speed. The ABC demonstrator didn't have that much range to begin with (it was often taken by train to demonstration sites or test ranges, whereas the XV-15 was simply flown there), and the J60s exacerbated this; they were a quick way to get the speed up for that portion of the tests.
My statement about the RAH-66 was because I probably overfocused on "Comanche" vs. LHX. Although there were a number of concepts showing ducted fan thrust, they actually hadn't been demonstrated in the air, so would incur an extra R&D program over the rotor system. This would probably have made an ABC bid a non-starter for the LHX even if the specifications hadn't been revised to exclude Tilt-Rotor.


From the few press tidbits we've seen from Heli-Expo, it looks like the X2 is now being talked of as a 240 knot vs 250 knot bird. Commercial production 6-9 seat versions would probably cruise at 250 knots. How Sikorsky may be differentiating its technology from Tilt-Rotor (based on some of their comments about the V-22's missions in Iraq) is not to compete directly on speed or range at a given size, but rather to emphasize hovering/very low speed efficiency coupled with a higher speed capability than regular helos and to market themselves in the shorter trip segments. In other words, taking advantage of not having to carry the weight or suffer the downwash effects of the wing in those shorter segments where the relatively smaller portion of the flight that would be wingborne would not be enough to overcome the inefficiencies of carrying the wing at low speeds. The more the percentage of a segment that is wingborne increases, the more the economics and speed advantage favor Tilt-Rotor, but the converse is also true.

This could prove quite interesting...

 

[Stuka]

More pictures. Can't wait to see this thing in the air.

 

[yasotay]

Stuka, Thanks for posting the excellent pictures! Did not Mr. Pino say he thought they would get the demonstrator off the ground this summer?

 

[Stuka]

I heard flight tests are tentatively scheduled to start around the end of April at the Hawkworks facility.

 

[turboshaft]

Sounds like a further delay to first flight. During Heli-Expo last month, Jeff Pino insisted the technology demonstrator would fly in the first quarter.

One more variation on the theme: light tactical helicopter, as shown during the AAAA Aviation Symposium in January.

 

[yasotay]

Interesting concept, but I still do not like the idea of an unprotected pusher. To many chances for catastrophe in a tactical environment (mostly with soldiers not paying attention).

 

[LowObservable]

Just a thought - why does the pusher have to even rotate at low speed or on the ground? You've got to have cyclic, so you have some low-speed propulsion, and there is no torque reaction.

 

[yasotay]

Just a thought - why does the pusher have to even rotate at low speed or on the ground? You've got to have cyclic, so you have some low-speed propulsion, and there is no torque reaction.

Good point but it would make for more complexity to decouple the pusher. You ought to be able to use differential torque, like a Kamov helicopter at lower speeds. I wonder if the mechanical mechanism would be would be less weight than a shroud over the prop?

lol - I just had a vision of a five speed shifter on the right side of the cockpit.

 

[F-14D]

Just a thought - why does the pusher have to even rotate at low speed or on the ground? You've got to have cyclic, so you have some low-speed propulsion, and there is no torque reaction.

Good point but it would make for more complexity to decouple the pusher. You ought to be able to use differential torque, like a Kamov helicopter at lower speeds. I wonder if the mechanical mechanism would be would be less weight than a shroud over the prop?

lol - I just had a vision of a five speed shifter on the right side of the cockpit.

Some statements from Sikorsky at the beginning of the program were to the tune that "this will not be an autogyro", and that the rotors would function "..as a wing". This might imply that unlike the previous ABC demonstrator, the rotors may function only in a lifting, not propulsive capacity (this is just a speculative observation on my part). This would simplify rotor design, reduce drag and weight of the rotor system, but would make some form of auxiliary propulsion absolutely necessary. For the record, the XH-59 operating only with its rotor system offered not big speed advantage over regular helos. It only got really fast when they hung a pair of turbojets on it. Possibly this is why what appears to be a variable pitch pusher on the craft. Note that on the AH-56 the pusher was also unshrouded, and it wasn't a demonstrator.

It will be interesting, I hope it'll work out. When Sikorsky announced the program in mid 2005, they said X2 would be demonstrating 250 knot speeds by the end of 2006. Here we are in April 2008 and it has yet to fly. The technology may not be as simple and mature as the PR implies it is...

 

[yasotay]

Just a thought - why does the pusher have to even rotate at low speed or on the ground? You've got to have cyclic, so you have some low-speed propulsion, and there is no torque reaction.

Good point but it would make for more complexity to decouple the pusher. You ought to be able to use differential torque, like a Kamov helicopter at lower speeds. I wonder if the mechanical mechanism would be would be less weight than a shroud over the prop?

lol - I just had a vision of a five speed shifter on the right side of the cockpit.

Some statements from Sikorsky at the beginning of the program were to the tune that "this will not be an autogyro", and that the rotors would function "..as a wing". This might imply that unlike the previous ABC demonstrator, the rotors may function only in a lifting, not propulsive capacity (this is just a speculative observation on my part). This would simplify rotor design, reduce drag and weight of the rotor system, but would make some form of auxiliary propulsion absolutely necessary. For the record, the XH-59 operating only with its rotor system offered not big speed advantage over regular helos. It only got really fast when they hung a pair of turbojets on it. Possibly this is why what appears to be a variable pitch pusher on the craft. Note that on the AH-56 the pusher was also unshrouded, and it wasn't a demonstrator.

It will be interesting, I hope it'll work out. When Sikorsky announced the program in mid 2005, they said X2 would be demonstrating 250 knot speeds by the end of 2006. Here we are in April 2008 and it has yet to fly. The technology may not be as simple and mature as the PR implies it is...

Very good point about the AH-56. I just think the safety guru's will get a tick in their eye about it. 03.00 in the FARP with very tired troopers moving fuel and bullets can make for a very disaster rich environment. Would rather they put a duct around it. Ought to help with the acoustics as well... I think.

 

[F-14D]

Just a thought - why does the pusher have to even rotate at low speed or on the ground? You've got to have cyclic, so you have some low-speed propulsion, and there is no torque reaction.

Good point but it would make for more complexity to decouple the pusher. You ought to be able to use differential torque, like a Kamov helicopter at lower speeds. I wonder if the mechanical mechanism would be would be less weight than a shroud over the prop?

lol - I just had a vision of a five speed shifter on the right side of the cockpit.

Some statements from Sikorsky at the beginning of the program were to the tune that "this will not be an autogyro", and that the rotors would function "..as a wing". This might imply that unlike the previous ABC demonstrator, the rotors may function only in a lifting, not propulsive capacity (this is just a speculative observation on my part). This would simplify rotor design, reduce drag and weight of the rotor system, but would make some form of auxiliary propulsion absolutely necessary. For the record, the XH-59 operating only with its rotor system offered not big speed advantage over regular helos. It only got really fast when they hung a pair of turbojets on it. Possibly this is why what appears to be a variable pitch pusher on the craft. Note that on the AH-56 the pusher was also unshrouded, and it wasn't a demonstrator.

It will be interesting, I hope it'll work out. When Sikorsky announced the program in mid 2005, they said X2 would be demonstrating 250 knot speeds by the end of 2006. Here we are in April 2008 and it has yet to fly. The technology may not be as simple and mature as the PR implies it is...

Very good point about the AH-56. I just think the safety guru's will get a tick in their eye about it. 03.00 in the FARP with very tired troopers moving fuel and bullets can make for a very disaster rich environment. Would rather they put a duct around it. Ought to help with the acoustics as well... I think.

You know, the tractor props on piston and turboprop aircraft aren't shrouded either. Of course, people do keep walking into them.

I think the reason you haven't seen many depictions of ABC craft with shrouded pushers is twofold: First, that would put a good deal of extra weight out at the end of a long lever, a design issue.
Second, we don't have a lot of info about how shrouded props behave, especially in this kind of operation. Not too much coming out of the X-49 program yet, so Sikorsky probably didn't want to add the question of the required extra development to their concept.

 

[LowObservable]

"Of course, people do keep walking into them."

Not true.

They only do it once.

 

[yasotay]

Some pictures off of the latest glossy handout found at the recent Army Aviation meeting. In talking to the Sikorsky folks they seem very keen to pursue X-2 as a way to get ahead. Not one cautionary comment from any of them. If nothing else it is good to hear optimism in the American rotorcraft industry again.

Sadly I did feel old, watching all the young lieutenants ogle the sexy scout attack X-2 model, the way I looked at all of the wonderful LHX models back in 1986. Certainly wish better results for them.

 

[frank]

Not quite. People, just not the same individual people.

"Of course, people do keep walking into them."

Not true.

They only do it once.

 

[fightingirish]

Sikorsky X2 LTH

This 240kt-dash light tactical helicopter is one of several applications Sikorsky is studying for its coaxial-rotor X2 Technology. The company's technology demonstrator should be beginning ground runs with its blades on right around now, and fly fairly soon.

Source:AVIATION WEEK - Ares A Defense Technology Blog - Ideas on Show at Helo Forum in Montreal (Posted by Graham Warwick at 5/2/2008 11:48 AM CDT)

 

[F-14D]

I remember seeing these kind of models and proposals back in the days of the XH-59, and also when they were pushing that goshawful X-Wing concept. I really hope they succeed because the more (useful) advanced rotorcraft technology we get the better. But to keep this ll in perspective, so far they've demonstrated nothing, and despite being years late their demonstrator has yet to even fly. Still, good luck to them.

 

[yasotay]

Indeed I too hope they can make this work. My hat is off to Mr. Pino and company for taking risks in this time of government supported timidity. For a CEO to strike out on his own and tell the government "Stay away, I don't want you messing up my program." [My words, although I was at the Forum in Fort Worth when he said it], takes a bully part of brass ones to do.

Alas I fear that Bell has gotten cold feet with the BA-609 as it is not shown prominently and Bell executives are actually negative about it in public. I recall one VP of something or other, saying something to the effect "We have taken so long with the project that some of the market has gone to bizjets and other efforts." Comments from the Augusta leadership seems to confirm angst with their US teammates. When I ask about it I get demurred comments or change of subject at the first opportunity.

I fear the end of an entire sector of the US Aerospace industry. After reading Sir Warwick's comments over at his new home about the AHS conference this last week, "Nothing new in the US military for a quarter century." (In essence). If the civil sector does not aspire to new means, we (America) will have to import our rotorcraft engineers soon.

 

[airman]

interestint prototype ! :

on wikipedia more informations :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_X2

seems have good performance !

 

[F-14D]

interestint prototype ! :

on wikipedia more informations :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_X2

seems have good performance !

Again, remember that none of this has been demonstrated...

 

[yasotay]

From Aviation Week: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/X205218.xml&headline=Sikorsky%20X2%20In%20Blades-On%20Ground%20Tests&channel=defense

Sikorsky X2 In Blades-On Ground Tests

May 21, 2008
By Graham Warwick


Sikorsky has begun "blades-on" ground tests of its X2 Technology coaxial-rotor high-speed helicopter demonstrator. "First flight is within our grasp," says Jim Kagdis, advanced program manager. The company-funded demonstrator is expected to fly within two months.

Testing is under way at the company's Schweizer Aircraft rapid prototyping facility in Horseheads, N.Y. Sikorsky's goal is to demonstrate a cruise speed of 250 kt, compared with around 160 kt. for a conventional helicopter. To achieve this, the X2 Technology demonstrator combines variable-speed rotors with low-drag hub fairings and advanced rigid blades, integrated engine/rotor/propulsor system, fly-by-wire and active vibration control.

The T800-powered X2 will fly initially with the tail-mounted propeller installed, but not connected, Kagdis says. The demonstrator will be used as a "flying wind tunnel" to determine the aerodynamic interaction between the rotor and propulsor. Other areas on interest will include optimization of the rotor shaft angle for performance and blade tip clearance for maneuvers, the company says.

Photo: Sikorsky

 

[F-14D]

From Aviation Week: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/X205218.xml&headline=Sikorsky%20X2%20In%20Blades-On%20Ground%20Tests&channel=defense

Sikorsky X2 In Blades-On Ground Tests

May 21, 2008
By Graham Warwick


Sikorsky has begun "blades-on" ground tests of its X2 Technology coaxial-rotor high-speed helicopter demonstrator. "First flight is within our grasp," says Jim Kagdis, advanced program manager. The company-funded demonstrator is expected to fly within two months.

Testing is under way at the company's Schweizer Aircraft rapid prototyping facility in Horseheads, N.Y. Sikorsky's goal is to demonstrate a cruise speed of 250 kt, compared with around 160 kt. for a conventional helicopter. To achieve this, the X2 Technology demonstrator combines variable-speed rotors with low-drag hub fairings and advanced rigid blades, integrated engine/rotor/propulsor system, fly-by-wire and active vibration control.

The T800-powered X2 will fly initially with the tail-mounted propeller installed, but not connected, Kagdis says. The demonstrator will be used as a "flying wind tunnel" to determine the aerodynamic interaction between the rotor and propulsor. Other areas on interest will include optimization of the rotor shaft angle for performance and blade tip clearance for maneuvers, the company says.

Photo: Sikorsky

You know, back at Heli Expo they were pointing to the stains on the exhaust saying this showed that they areready had power to the aircraft. This article, though , lets the cat out of the bag that they hadn't done power with rotors on. Also, at Heli Expo, they were implying that the bird (already years late) would fly real soon, maybe by end of first quarter 08 or at worst 2nd quarter. From this article, it looks like they'll miss those as well.

I really hope this technology works this time, but we've got to keep in mind that despite all the hoopla, they actually haven't demonstrated anyting yet. I wonder if Boeing is paying them anything because right now this makes the 787's schedule slips look good by comparison.

 

[RavenOne]

Saw X2 unveiled at Heli Expo 2008 in Houston and the potential AH role for future X2 as I saw at Farnborough last week,
and from Farnborough - proposed armed variant

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4214666.html

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

My Farnborough 2008 armed X2 pics

 

[F-14D]

My Farnborough 2008 armed X2 pics

It's good to see that Sikorsky has definitely advanced the technology of display models and artists' concepts, and not meaning to be a repetitive wet blanket and all, but have they gotten the X2 to actually fly yet?

 

[yasotay]

Wonderful pictures of X-2 and concepts. Thanks overscan and RavenOne. Although I am still mystified at the unprotected prop. Even if it is more efficient that way there are too many reasons not to leave it out there.

It seems that the first flight of the X-2 demonstrator remains imminent... within the next year. Had opportunity to talk with some Sikorsky folks last week and got all of the nervous laughs and "when its ready" responses. While unimpressed with the "so busy building helicopters" response (it strikes me that they would be a different set of engineers), I can, however, believe that with a fair chunk of IRAD tied up in the bird they want to make sure it does not pull a CRW demo on them.

Of course they are not waffling any worse than Bell is with the 609. With first deliveries now...six years (?) overdue. All of the "who's in charge" on that program ought to raise an eyebrow.

 

[F-14D]

Wonderful pictures of X-2 and concepts. Thanks overscan and RavenOne. Although I am still mystified at the unprotected prop. Even if it is more efficient that way there are too many reasons not to leave it out there.

It seems that the first flight of the X-2 demonstrator remains imminent... within the next year. Had opportunity to talk with some Sikorsky folks last week and got all of the nervous laughs and "when its ready" responses. While unimpressed with the "so busy building helicopters" response (it strikes me that they would be a different set of engineers), I can, however, believe that with a fair chunk of IRAD tied up in the bird they want to make sure it does not pull a CRW demo on them.

Of course they are not waffling any worse than Bell is with the 609. With first deliveries now...six years (?) overdue. All of the "who's in charge" on that program ought to raise an eyebrow.

Actually, there's quite a difference. The 609 pretty much flew on schedule ands did not fall behind schedule because of technical issues. Bell publicly stated after early flight tests that it was changing its strategy and would suspend work on the program in order to devote their Tilt-Rotor resources to getting the V-22 into service and deployed, work with the FAA or developing powered lift criteria and would restart later on, which is more or less what has happened.

As much as I want it to work, in the case of X2 they are updating a concept from a not terribly successful program of the early '80s (around the same time as the wildly successful XV-15) and haven't been able to get it in the air despite repeated predictions of first flight.

 

[yasotay]

Wonderful pictures of X-2 and concepts. Thanks overscan and RavenOne. Although I am still mystified at the unprotected prop. Even if it is more efficient that way there are too many reasons not to leave it out there.

It seems that the first flight of the X-2 demonstrator remains imminent... within the next year. Had opportunity to talk with some Sikorsky folks last week and got all of the nervous laughs and "when its ready" responses. While unimpressed with the "so busy building helicopters" response (it strikes me that they would be a different set of engineers), I can, however, believe that with a fair chunk of IRAD tied up in the bird they want to make sure it does not pull a CRW demo on them.

Of course they are not waffling any worse than Bell is with the 609. With first deliveries now...six years (?) overdue. All of the "who's in charge" on that program ought to raise an eyebrow.

Actually, there's quite a difference. The 609 pretty much flew on schedule ands did not fall behind schedule because of technical issues. Bell publicly stated after early flight tests that it was changing its strategy and would suspend work on the program in order to devote their Tilt-Rotor resources to getting the V-22 into service and deployed, work with the FAA or developing powered lift criteria and would restart later on, which is more or less what has happened.

As much as I want it to work, in the case of X2 they are updating a concept from a not terribly successful program of the early '80s (around the same time as the wildly successful XV-15) and haven't been able to get it in the air despite repeated predictions of first flight.

Perhaps, I am just curious why the European member of the 609 team is banging on the gate with the program and Bell's position appears to be lackluster "small market" "other priority" messages. I suspect there is more to the deal than just market share.

Back on X-2 it would appear that the Russian design houses (the ones still in Russia) agree with Sikorsky on the viability of the compound.