Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
rolex replica-
rolex replica watches-
best replica watches-
watches-
diamond watches-
replica watches-
rolex watches-
watches online-
timex watches-
ladies watch-
luxury watch-
wrist watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
ladies watch-
men's watch-
wrist watches-
replica watches-
fine watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
replica rolex watches-
rolex watch-

Posted by: luxury watch at April 21, 2009 04:16 AM

If the goal is to produce prototypes, it seems like Piasecki has already been here and has a leg up on Sikorski. Last year, Piasecki (originator of the dual rotor system that led to the YH-16, CH-46 and the CH-47) under contract to the ARMY completed their phase-one demonstration of a vectored-thrust compound helicopter using a significantly larger, Sikorski UH-60 airframe. For their design, they retrofitted a ducted fan and wing stubs onto an BlackHawk airframe and proved enhanced speed and vibration performance. As for looks and appearance, this airframe looks much closer to what you would expect from a vertical craft too as opposed to having the dual rotors on top of each others.

Posted by: Observer at February 3, 2009 02:25 PM

It was my pleasure to visit your blog. It is really a mirecle to visit your blog in this wide world. And I also have the feeling that it was really a pity that we didn't meet each other earlier. Because the kindness and warmth in your blog can make me completely relaxed and happy. I hope that you will visit my blog too to see if you can have the same feeling.

afake rolex watch replica

http://www.lowestmall.com
http://www.easyforbuy.com
http://www.ecforshop.com
http://www.gomykick.com
http://www.onestoptown.com
http://www.rolex8u.com
http://www.watchinstyle.com
http://www.yourshop.cc
http://www.instylewatch.com
http://www.sellbestshoes.com
http://www.buynikeshoes.com
http://www.PICKHANDBAG.COM
http://www.PICKMYWATCH.COM
http://www.PICKTHEBAG.COM
http://www.ROLEXWATCHFORU.COM
http://www.REPLICAWATCHFORU.COM
http://www.wearmyrolexnow.com

Posted by: lowestmalllowestmall at October 23, 2008 09:06 PM

Greg

What makes you think that Comanche tech has not made its way in to X2, S76D, H92, UH60, CH53K etc?

Again, I think a lot of you guys on here keep forgetting that this craft is just a technology demonstrator. It will never be produced in this configuration.

Posted by: C. Foskey at September 4, 2008 01:05 PM

Why not just make an x2 comanche. Then you have an escort for the JHL. Most of the research for the comanche has been paid for. Why not use it in the next generation attack helicopter?

Posted by: Greg at September 3, 2008 02:10 PM

Dennis, read the opening line of your link which talks about tilt rotors being around since the 50s. Look at how many tilt rotors have been operational during that time vs. helicopters that originated around the same timeframe.

Look at the 900 lb weight of your air vehicle which increases by 200-400 lbs with pilot(s). Look at the measley 100 hp engine to power the batteries driving the electric motors. Show me an electric car or hybrid that weighs the same as the high performance conventional engine.

Finally, check out the powerpoint that I posted in the UH-60M article above and see how aircraft with equivalent power have much different payloads depending on whether helicopter or tilt rotor. Hint....the tilt rotor never wins.

Now look at this little X2 gem with 8 blades producing lift in a much smaller rotor diameter allowing enhanced lift in a small LZ with similar to tilt rotor speeds. Methinks that rumors of the demise of helicopters are more than a bit exaggerated.

Posted by: Cole at September 2, 2008 07:31 PM

I appreciate Sikorsy's efforts; but if you look at this:

http://www.gizmag.com/falx-to-debut-hybrid-electric-tilt-rotor-aircraft-with-inbuilt-solar-c/9234/

You realize that even with it still on the drawing board, this design is going to make helicopters and the Osprey so much overcomplicated / obsolete junk.....
Sikorsky needs to not make the same mistake the railroads did, they are not in the business of railroads, but of transporting things. With this thought in mind you would think the rail barons would have started truck and aircraft companies.
No, most of them just went out of business....
I think the helicopter is not long for this world…

Posted by: Dennis at September 2, 2008 03:08 PM

RE Spencer:

Cartercopter is a joke. They break the mu=1 barrier than destroy their prototype and do nothing in the following 4 years.

You other guys have to realize that this craft is just a technology demonstrator. We created this as a platofrm to study the entire concept to be applied to specific mission profiles. Actually, the army re-funded X2 research for JHL, after they had claimed in 2006 that they were only looking at tilt rotor solutions. The X2 tech package looks promising, and our concepts utilize it in an osprey sized aircraft which, if you may recall, can autorotate...as all X2 based designs can.

Posted by: C. Foskey at September 1, 2008 12:29 PM

I believe it will become a cheap version of Ospreys. This does not fly as fast as Ospreys, but cheaper to produce, cheaper to maintain. It would rather fit into the hi-lo mix with the Ospreys. The Ospreys would be the hi (quality approach) and the X-2 offsprings will be the lo (quantity approach). With a high price tag on Ospreys, a less speedy but lower price tag of the X-2 offsprings will provide quantities versus quality of the Ospreys, just like the hi-lo mix of Raptors and Lightning II.

>Now that would be an appropriate Osprey escort.

I had that in mind too. Probably not any other platform would achieve such high speed. It is not fast as Osprey, but faster than any other propelled VTOL excluding Osprey itself. Osprey has difficulties for weapon bays to be added due to the rotor blade being in the way. The X-2 offspring will have more freedom to add on weapon bays just like other helos. Both has advantages and disadvantages. These are not rivals, but something that would cover the weakness of the other.

Posted by: pedestrian at August 31, 2008 09:58 AM

Only one thing to say,
http://www.cartercopters.com/

Posted by: jon spencer at August 31, 2008 06:07 AM

You don't need to bother about having rigid rotors and making them counter-rotate if you go the Fairey Rotodyne route. With that, vertical flight was achieved with tip jets ducted from the main engines to eliminate torque, slow forward flight made the rotor work like an autogyro, and fast forward flight was practical because the wings provided most of the lift and unloaded the rotor enough that the blades didn't need to adjust so much and the hingeing approach was still good enough. The Rotodyne managed speeds above 200 knots in the 1960s, so a modern development should be competitive even today.

Posted by: P.M.Lawrence at August 30, 2008 04:05 AM

@ hex16 "What is the concern about rotor tips going supersonic"

If the the tip goes super-sonic the resulting shockwave would tear(best description for lay person) the tip off, unless the whole thing was designed ALOT HEAVIER.

In the original teasting of supersonic jets they ended up with massive gouges in the air frame, if this happened in the thin and relatively light rotor blades the tips would tear off because extremely high pressure air would blast it's way through the metal of the blade.

Kind of like sand blasting, in high speed. And through metal.

Posted by: Scathsealgaire at August 29, 2008 08:07 PM

Recall reading an article about the KA-50 a few years ago, but don't recall the source (AW&ST?) Author stated that the KA-50 had, at that time, a problem with the upper & lower rotor blades colliding if the pilot attempted too tight a turn at high speed. The result, you can guess, was immediate falling out of the sky.
This wouldn't be a problem in civilian use, but they'd have to keep the cost down to sell them.

Posted by: Will at August 29, 2008 03:37 PM

Coolhand77, you are thinking about Cheyenne...a large prototype sits at the Army Avn Museum at Rucker.

As for helicopter aerodynamics, don't recall the details too accurately, but the advantage of twin counterrotating rotors include:
* elimination of tail rotors required to counter the torque of a single rotor
* more lift from the same rotor diameter or the same lift from less rotor diameter to fit in tighter spaces
* countering retreating blade stall to allow increased forward airspeed

As helicopters fly faster, airspeed improves lift of advancing blades and reduces lift of retreating blades moving to the helicopter's aft. To counter this dissemmetry of lift, rotor heads allow flapping which means that advancing blades rise slightly which lessens angle of attack and produces less lift. Conversely, retreating blades descend slightly to produce a greater angle of attack and more lift to equalize with the advancing blades. As airspeeds increase, the retreating blade's angle of attack becomes too great which leads to stalling.

By having counterrotating blades there are advancing (and retreating) blades on both sides as airspeed increases. Apparently by slowing rotor speed as airspeed increases (?), Sikorsky can reduce the tendency of the retreating blade to stall, and perhaps they even can alter the angle of attack on the retreating side (?). Because these are rigid rotors, I would guess there isn't a whole lot of flapping involved which wouldn't be good with one blade rising and the other descending on different tip path planes?

Sounds exciting and a good use of that old Comanche T-800 engine sitting around.;) It has got to be a less expensive solution to high speed flight while retaining good hover performance with higher payloads, and effective autorotation.

Posted by: Cole at August 29, 2008 12:18 PM

What is the concern about rotor tips going supersonic?

Posted by: hex16 at August 29, 2008 11:58 AM

Wasnt there a pre-Apache gunship prototype with a pusher prop that got scuttled due to complexity? Of course it used a pusher, a tail roter, and a standard rotor...
Had 40mm and 20mm turrets in the concept as well IIRC.

Posted by: coolhand77 at August 29, 2008 10:54 AM

What about stop rotor technology, i.e. the dragonfly, this has the potential for greater speed and efficiency due to using jet propulsion.

The capabilities of these systems could be compared to see which is more capable for a range of missions.

Posted by: kevin stafford at August 29, 2008 10:52 AM

wow looks like theres sht loads of room in that chopper for troops and equipment..., see its not an Osprey competitor.

Posted by: Jimbo Jones at August 29, 2008 06:08 AM

Build Commercial & Military models.
Make this Comanche 2 Gunship for Army & new the new MARINE ONE for the White House.
& replace the Huey?
Ideal Gunship, MedEvac, SAR, Cargo, passenger model.
Have computer controlled flt systems means anyone can Fly it.
( have bad coordination for stick, rudder, pedals & hover throttle in std copters).
Must make or use in estd copter systems.

Posted by: stephen russell at August 28, 2008 10:38 PM

irtusk,
Apples and oranges man, apples and oranges.

Posted by: Shamus62 at August 28, 2008 08:34 PM

Wahoo! Gotta love it.

The funny thing is that Horseheads, NY is a little rural town. The factory is rapidly coming the lifeblood of the Elmira/ Horseheads area.

You gotta love when your small home town makes something hi-tech that is national news.

Posted by: Ptsfp at August 28, 2008 08:28 PM

Bell had a tiltrotor gunship idea that got as far as mockup stage years ago, and indeed it was 'wicked cool'. (The two words I think of everytime I think of the photos of it).

The problem with helos is at any given time half your wings are going the wrong direction. The helo approach will always be less aerodynamically efficient in the horizontal plane no matter what you do, whereas the tilt-somethings get to put their thrust 100% in the direction they need it.

Pick your 'complexity' penalty and balance that against the 'efficiency' benefit for each alternative and follow what makes sense for your application.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at August 28, 2008 07:58 PM

Maybe Sikorsky could team up with Kamov Helicopters and apply this technology, along with western avionics & arms, to the KA-50 which already uses counter-rotating rotors. Kamov has previously teamed up with Israeli Aircraft Industries to create the KA-50-2 Erdogan.

Then again, with the stuff Russia is doing in Georgia...maybe we don't want to upgrade any of their weapons systems.

Posted by: Doug VW at August 28, 2008 06:59 PM

@Moose
Cobra came out of the Huey programme. Imagine the bastard child that would be an Osprey Gunship?!?!
Now that would be an appropriate Osprey escort. A Midget "Spectre", that hovers if necessary.

Posted by: Scathsealgaire at August 28, 2008 06:35 PM

I wouldn't bet on it. This may be a better helicopter than the Osprey, but the Osprey is a better airplane than this.

It WILL however be a great Osprey escort (think of a 200+ kt Cobra).

Posted by: Moose at August 28, 2008 06:20 PM

it would be hillarious if they obsoleted the ENTIRE justification for that stupid Osprey in one fell swoop

Posted by: irtusk at August 28, 2008 04:39 PM