This 🚁 in the armed version is VERY like the Lockheed AH 56 Cheyenne, which also had Pioneered the ridgid rotor, twin rotor, with auxiliary propulsion pusher propeller, fly by wire flight controls, and a slewed too the helmet weapons sighting system, with the monocle for other information
That's like saying the X2 technology is very similar to the ABC Concept tech.Worlds apart in performance capability and the time factor has driven the technology so much farther.Cheyenne was single engine and single main rigid-rotor with anti-torque (tail) rotor (so - classic Penny-Farthing configuration) plus pusher prop. It had wings that generated some lift in forward flight.Raider and Defiant (in both utility and attack) are so much more agile, responsive and powerful they leave us acknowledging the ABC and AH-56 as their ancestors as much as Neanderthal is to us.However, you are correct in that the similarities are not lost on Sikorsky's new parent company, Lockheed, who made the Cheyenne a reality in the mid-to late 70s before the USAF destroyed the project. Literally, through improper wind tunnel testing for a rigid rotor aircraft (NASA-AMES was the unwitting accomplice) and figuratively, through politics aimed at budget keeping for the CAS mission by changing course and developing the Fairchild-Republic A-10 (which -ironically- they so desperately want to get rid of now). The latter being the main reason this project is underway at all. Assuredly, if the USAF comes up with another solution to the CAS mission set they can use their leverage with Congress and the project will once again die on the vine.Except this time Sikorsky did almost all of their research out of pocket with no USG dollars (hence the nearsighted accountants at UTC sold them off to Lockheed for peanuts) freeing them to sell their products to whomever they choose.Whereas, Bell will be counting on some meager bone thrown in their direction for the Valor...In which case, the Army might finally get the high speed vertical lift they funded the research for almost 40 years ago.
I can imagine a version with 2 counter-rotating single blades/wings, they can lock to the back to save space & transition to a fixed-configuration at high speeds
To the VTOL concept engineering team. Nice job, but if at all possible could you adapt one or more turbines for forward motion? And duct the exhaust as a means to control yaw along with the rear flaps and vertical stabilizers. Just a question that might help?🤔🤔🤔😉 Go Secorsky
If memory serves, when Lockheed was working on its Cheyenne attack helicopter ( effectively the X2 technology's technological ancestor) back in the 1960's, they developed a few prototypes before the Cheyenne that used augmented jet propulsion instead of a propeller and found that its manoeuvrability wasn't as good. Jets take a relatively long time to accelerate and decelerate, whereas a variable pitch propeller can go from fast to slow on a dime. In terms of range and economy, I'd imagine that a propeller propulsion system will take the aircraft further and guzzle less fuel, which is never a bad thing either. Finally, although this X2 technology will enable a rotorcraft to fly much faster than conventional helicopters, it is still subject to a theoretical speed limit due to the nature of rotorblade aerodynamics and, therefore, there's only so much more speed that could be attained from a jet propulsion system rather than a prop driven one. As for ducting gas turbine exhaust gases for yaw control: it's a neat idea, and could reduce mechanical complexity significantly, but likely hasn't ever been adopted because pilots would lose yaw control in the event of engine failure. While the co-axial rotor system does have a hideously complex collective, cyclic and yaw control system, the helicopter retains all of those controls in an engine-out situation, even if its yaw inputs are reversed (though perhaps fly-by-wire sorts that out). As you say though, kudos to Sikorsky's evidently excellent engineering team and I'll be very interested to see where this technology takes us! :)
Have a look at the "Whirlwing" on my channel. I got the idea from this and the Eurocopter X3. But the idea has evolved! I have a glider of the Whirlwing and there are other tests.
Well, why did you wait until the Navy signed a contract for 200 new versions of the Sea Stallion? The Sea Super Duper Stallion is breathtaking, with three (3) jet engines, an added 13 inches in the cabin width, and an avionics suite to rival the F35, but it costs as much as a fighter aircraft.
Here's the mandatory Russian fanboy spitting bullshit like under every other video about the X-2, S-97 or the XB-1... The Brantly B-1 flew one year earlier than the Ka-8.
what is the point telling our potential enemies our plans or future technologies? Normal people can’t buy these toys so you give focus for enemies cyber army a target to steal!
Russia proved out sea based dual rotor tech & build power grind harshest conditions with this tech. enough said. done pencil team not 1 million dollar pen side.
At 80 km/h it isn't the "high speed" the US DoD is looking for. 463 km/h cruising speed is. It may look alike but it isn't remotely the same. You might think a plane is a car because it has wheels.
@Alan Walker Music Dj it may be somewhat smaller but that road hub assembly is absolutely massive The hub itself will probably produce most of the radar signature compared to the body.
@Alan Walker Music Dj the paint only works to a Point a large object like an enclosed rotor mast that is also rotating at high speeds shows up incredibly well on radar even if you paint it with radar absorbing paint. The rotor mast on the X2 is just as tall as the helicopter body itself and just as wide and with the fact it's rotating it easily has 50% more radar signature right there if not double or Triple the signature.
Looking at this now, Sikorsky had come a Long Way, now it's Partnered up with Boeing to create the SB-1 Defiant, both Utility and Attack Variants.
nice piece of kit ... great design. 👍
It just looks cool too.
every time I see an x2 it reminds me of this old aircraft AH-56 Cheyenne
Exactly what I thinking. I guess I'm getting old.
Very good.....job !!!
This 🚁 in the armed version is VERY like the Lockheed AH 56 Cheyenne, which also had Pioneered the ridgid rotor, twin rotor, with auxiliary propulsion pusher propeller, fly by wire flight controls, and a slewed too the helmet weapons sighting system, with the monocle for other information
That's like saying the X2 technology is very similar to the ABC Concept tech.Worlds apart in performance capability and the time factor has driven the technology so much farther.Cheyenne was single engine and single main rigid-rotor with anti-torque (tail) rotor (so - classic Penny-Farthing configuration) plus pusher prop. It had wings that generated some lift in forward flight.Raider and Defiant (in both utility and attack) are so much more agile, responsive and powerful they leave us acknowledging the ABC and AH-56 as their ancestors as much as Neanderthal is to us.However, you are correct in that the similarities are not lost on Sikorsky's new parent company, Lockheed, who made the Cheyenne a reality in the mid-to late 70s before the USAF destroyed the project. Literally, through improper wind tunnel testing for a rigid rotor aircraft (NASA-AMES was the unwitting accomplice) and figuratively, through politics aimed at budget keeping for the CAS mission by changing course and developing the Fairchild-Republic A-10 (which -ironically- they so desperately want to get rid of now). The latter being the main reason this project is underway at all. Assuredly, if the USAF comes up with another solution to the CAS mission set they can use their leverage with Congress and the project will once again die on the vine.Except this time Sikorsky did almost all of their research out of pocket with no USG dollars (hence the nearsighted accountants at UTC sold them off to Lockheed for peanuts) freeing them to sell their products to whomever they choose.Whereas, Bell will be counting on some meager bone thrown in their direction for the Valor...In which case, the Army might finally get the high speed vertical lift they funded the research for almost 40 years ago.
@@carlospar3727 you are correct, in my comments I was simply trying too show the AH-56 was the forerunner too all of this
Now the osprey is doing weapons testing so it won't need an escort
I want to see one of those with a LASER installed
Looks interesting, but helices is too big. I would build a smaller reverse build with 3 helices , 2 on a forward and 1 on a back ^^
I can imagine a version with 2 counter-rotating single blades/wings, they can lock to the back to save space & transition to a fixed-configuration at high speeds
There's a little change its Back rotor would be dubble one clock ways others would be ante clock ways..
Vidyut,Bangladesh..
This looks like a good idea. Unfortunately it'll take a lot of time and money to make it an operational system.
Look up the S-97, its a big competitor in the army FVL program
To the VTOL concept engineering team. Nice job, but if at all possible could you adapt one or more turbines for forward motion? And duct the exhaust as a means to control yaw along with the rear flaps and vertical stabilizers. Just a question that might help?🤔🤔🤔😉 Go Secorsky
If memory serves, when Lockheed was working on its Cheyenne attack helicopter ( effectively the X2 technology's technological ancestor) back in the 1960's, they developed a few prototypes before the Cheyenne that used augmented jet propulsion instead of a propeller and found that its manoeuvrability wasn't as good. Jets take a relatively long time to accelerate and decelerate, whereas a variable pitch propeller can go from fast to slow on a dime. In terms of range and economy, I'd imagine that a propeller propulsion system will take the aircraft further and guzzle less fuel, which is never a bad thing either. Finally, although this X2 technology will enable a rotorcraft to fly much faster than conventional helicopters, it is still subject to a theoretical speed limit due to the nature of rotorblade aerodynamics and, therefore, there's only so much more speed that could be attained from a jet propulsion system rather than a prop driven one.
As for ducting gas turbine exhaust gases for yaw control: it's a neat idea, and could reduce mechanical complexity significantly, but likely hasn't ever been adopted because pilots would lose yaw control in the event of engine failure. While the co-axial rotor system does have a hideously complex collective, cyclic and yaw control system, the helicopter retains all of those controls in an engine-out situation, even if its yaw inputs are reversed (though perhaps fly-by-wire sorts that out).
As you say though, kudos to Sikorsky's evidently excellent engineering team and I'll be very interested to see where this technology takes us! :)
Kinda iffy because of top heavy nature but hey, a Dynamite system 👍👍
So they can make those old concepts work newer technologies! I what the radar cross section of those counter rotating props looks like?
Have a look at the "Whirlwing" on my channel. I got the idea from this and the Eurocopter X3. But the idea has evolved! I have a glider of the Whirlwing and there are other tests.
Malcome Forde The attack/escort version definitely looks like the AH-56 Cheyenne.
Well, why did you wait until the Navy signed a contract for 200 new versions of the Sea Stallion? The Sea Super Duper Stallion is breathtaking, with three (3) jet engines, an added 13 inches in the cabin width, and an avionics suite to rival the F35, but it costs as much as a fighter aircraft.
All the CH-53s had three engines
Did they deliberately make this video to look like it was made in the 80s?
What can X2 technology do for you? Got a few mill, have you? lol
250 knots is nice and all, but the V22 can already go 350 knots.
он убил их всех
please i have asked my toilet roll manufactor to print this advanced tech on it so i can have a high tec kak
To nic innego jak przerobiony rosyjski Ka-50
Here's the mandatory Russian fanboy spitting bullshit like under every other video about the X-2, S-97 or the XB-1...
The Brantly B-1 flew one year earlier than the Ka-8.
what is the point telling our potential enemies our plans or future technologies? Normal people can’t buy these toys so you give focus for enemies cyber army a target to steal!
discirm Russia has been flying their prototypes of twin rotors and a pusher for quite some time. There’s nothing for them to steal.
Dont the Russians use heli likes those
Russia proved out sea based dual rotor tech & build power grind harshest conditions with this tech. enough said. done pencil team not 1 million dollar pen side.
Kamov Ka-8, coaxial rotor helicopter, 1945, UUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHH
At 80 km/h it isn't the "high speed" the US DoD is looking for. 463 km/h cruising speed is.
It may look alike but it isn't remotely the same. You might think a plane is a car because it has wheels.
This helicopter design looks like a US copy of Russian Kamov helicopter.
But the x2 is designed to have a larger radar signature. So it can't be a copy 😋
Only the top rotor configuration is the same. Which Kamov helicopter has a pusher propeller?
@Alan Walker Music Dj it may be somewhat smaller but that road hub assembly is absolutely massive The hub itself will probably produce most of the radar signature compared to the body.
@Alan Walker Music Dj the paint only works to a Point a large object like an enclosed rotor mast that is also rotating at high speeds shows up incredibly well on radar even if you paint it with radar absorbing paint. The rotor mast on the X2 is just as tall as the helicopter body itself and just as wide and with the fact it's rotating it easily has 50% more radar signature right there if not double or Triple the signature.