previous post next post  

Deja vu all over again.

X-49A-SpeedHawk-05-2014.jpg "PiAC’s “SpeedHawk” Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller (VTDP) Compound Helicopter program is an Army Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) program to flight demonstrate potential improvements in speed, range, survivability and reliability, addressing the Army’s Future Force requirements for greater rotorcraft operational reach and sustainability. The VTDP technology replaces the conventional tail rotor and provides anti-torque and yaw control with the additional ability to provide forward thrust and trim control. In combination with a lifting wing, this technology unloads the rotor, allowing the helicopter to fly 50% faster, twice as far, is more maneuverable and reduces vibration and fatigue loads, improving reliability and reducing life cycle costs. First flight of the X-49A SpeedHawk Demonstrator occurred on 29 June 2007 and the Phase 1 flight test envelope expansion program has been completed at the Flight Test Center, Wilmington, Delaware. All initial Phase I contract milestones have been accomplished and the results have met or exceeded all program objectives."

Kewl. And, deja vu all over again, too.

Can you spell Cheyenne? I knew you could.





 Totally different, the new one has a duct around the propeller - it's like totally new!
Cheyenne had a major difference with the demonstrator at the head of the post. The UH-60 rotor is fully articulated, as I recall, and the Cheyenne's was rigid. The Cheyenne was a complex chopper for its time, but the idea seemed a good one. I think the Army got most of what it wanted in the Cheyenne in the Apache. Sikorski has looked at contra-rotating rigid rotors which overcomes the imbalances caused by retreating blade speed, as well as the torque problem. Sikorski has had theirs close to 270 knots, and it doesn't have near the complexity as the Cheyenne. I can't remember what Sikorski called it, but there are few clips out on You Tube about the development and testing of the chopper, which they have been doing on their own dime. They've got it to the point it could, theoretically, take over the little bird mission easily. Hanging guys out in a 180-200 knot breeze wouldn't be fun, however. OTOH, if they can scale it up, it might be able to equal the ability of the Osprey for less complexity. The Army Aviation museum had one example of a Cheyenne in their collection and kept it inside when I was at Rucker. Any idea where your picture was taken?
 The one in the picture is outside of the aviation museum at Rucker.
I was just riffing on the pusher and wings.  One would hope the state of the art would have advanced a touch.

There used to be a Cheyenne sitting in a clearing on a pad in the woods at Fort Polk, too.



SImilar to the old Kellett Autygyros, with a rotary blade voerhead for lift and a front mounted engine and prop for thrust, in lieu of the pusher blade on these.
 They had some Cheyennes in Vietnam for evaluation in a combat zone while I was there.  I saw one airborne a few times.
IIRC the main prob with the Cheyenne was that it had wings, something the USAF would not tolerate in army hands.  Even today there is the appearance that the AF killed off the C-27J Spartan first as an army project then as just "not needed", would another winged army aircraft fare better?  Not trying to start anything, this was just the first thing to come to mind.

Both a/c are extremelly kewl.  Anyone remember the old Aurora Cheyenne kit?
Well, yeah, the wings will diminish the effects of "retreating blade stall"(rollover to the left, invert, and die), but not eliminate it.
I don't think this demonstrator has a fully articulated rotor. No "Lead & Lag" flex.
Looks like rigid, and would have to be.
Helicopters have some funny dynamics.
 The only problem here is this, all of you make good points. But the problem is this. All of you are getting dangerously close to common sense. Government and common sense, do not compute.
C'mon, Grumpy, there have been good designs which were also cost-effective. :)
Speaking of common sense, I've been chewing over the coming/on going reduction in forces and the inevitable chaos of the next big one. Take young top ten percent NCOs, run them through officer basic, pay them an extra C note a month. Voila: you have pared off months to get back to where you should be. Nah: not invented here.
That was the Cheyenne I saw inside the old museum at Rucker. They had a few AC outside, and those things were junk then. I hope they do better with the 56 than they did with the old AC. The state of the art has advanced a bit from what I've seen. I think the pure Helo world is going to be left behind by the Army in the not too distant future. The AF did steal the C-27 program. The Army needed the C-27 to replace the Sherpas, but that won't happen now. The AF needs its wings clipped seriously. From what I'm hearing there is talk of it at the 5 sided wind tunnel. The return of TacAir to the Army would be a move that would, potentially, increase efficiency and end one battle the Army has had to constantly fight from Korea onward. How can you take a service seriously when it steals a program, then sends new/almost new aircraft from that program to the boneyard?
 And... QM is trolling for Dusty.
Dusty can have his opinion. I've seen it and I'm simply expressing my own. The C-27 program was managed with utter stupidity as the guiding principle.
 I wonder how much power that big prop in th back robs from the lift blades...
Once the birdie is flying horizonally above stall speed, the rotor can be shifted into autogyro mode and thus rotated via forward airspeed. Max power can then be sent to the tail prop.

 Casey, you write, "C'mon, Grumpy, there have been good designs which were also cost-effective.:)"

I agree with you, there had been some good designs that WERE cost-effective. But, that is not the real issue. Where are those good designs now located? I figure they are all in the "Bone Yard". As you look at the new design that are still on active duty. Now, show me the cost effective choices.

Augetter, you write about taking the top 10% of the NCOs, and starting the process of building a new young officer corps in the military. There is only one problem, our military is already "top-heavy". I do believe we could remove some of that officer corps to make room for the new younger military officer. I do believe that this should be a process that should focus on a selected number of fields that would be expanded later at some point in time.
One good result, sorta, of the C27J debacle, looks like the USCG will get 14 of the mothballed Spartans.  They'll give up 7 C-130's and 15 C-2B Sherbas to the USFS in exchange, which will be government owned, contractor operated.  The Hercules as air tankers and the Sherbas as jump ships and untility aircraft.  The USAF will overhaul the C-130's including replacing the wing boxes as needed.  Convoluted, but at least there is some movement and positive result, mabbe, depends on how the USFS manages these once they get them.
Sorry that should be C-23B, not C-2B, stickey keyboard an' all.