Talk:Sikorsky X2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article expansion

I am currently working on expanding the text of the article at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky X2. Feel free to contribute there. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Military helicopters

Is this aircraft being funded by a military service or by DARPA? I thought this was a private research venture by Sikorsky to expand the technology and information on coaxial rotor systems. It carries no X-plane or X-helicopter designation. Just wondering. --Born2flie 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops! It was probably left over from the article I used to start the page (Sikorsky S-69 I believe). I've removed. I don't usually mess with the cats (as you've noticed before!), so thanks for spotting that. To my knowledge, it is a private project, though some DARPA funds may be involved. - BillCJ 18:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Readiness

The X2 demonstrator is a fully internally funded project (hence some of the delays experienced over the last couple years). Prototype is about 90% complete at Schweizer/Sikrosky "Hawkworks" in Elmira, NY and is being prepped for unloaded ground testing. Theres a lot of info thats not in public domain as of yet, so I need to triple check what is allowed to be divulged.--Cefoskey 16:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, any info that has been publically released is usable, either in Sikorsky press releases, or in reliable publications. Anything else would be original research anyway, and not usable.

I have a sandbox page set up at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky X2. It has a couple of large article texts in it, but needs to be rewritten to avoid copyvios. I intended to get to this in June, but have been distracted, and keep forgetting to get back to it. Rewriting large amounts of text is not my best attribute, so I keep procrastinating. If you'd like to work on it, feel free - Form you work on the V-22 page, you seem to be good at rewriting text - disputes not withstanding, I mean that sincerely. I would love to have the expanded article ready by the time the X2 is rolled out or makes its first flight. - BillCJ 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I only made the commentary on public domain indo due to the fact that a lot of times the engineers working on projects arent fully made aware of when IP becomes public. My rule of thumb is that it a bad idea to mention specifics concerning an AC I have done design work on before I can readily find the same information posted elsewhere online. The X2 is definitely no exception, as I have yet to see any photos or specs I have on my desk posted on the web. I will certainly review what youve got in the sandbox, though. --Cefoskey 19:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Now the V-22 interest make more sense! ABC was a competitor in JVX, no? (Said somewhat in jest.) JVX may have been before your time - I was only 12!. Anyway, truthfully, the V-22 may have been to big a jump in size, and an ABC-type aircraft in its size range might have been less risky, though evidently the technology wasn't quite ready yet either, per the X2 articles. Finding specifications for the X2 has been difficult, but I suspect they'll come out around the time of first filght, perhaps. Would love to talk off the record by email, as I've always been fascinated by compound helicopters and VTOLs. (Who would have thunk it, as I created the S-69, X2, X-49, and Piacecki 16H pages, and expanded the S-72 page.) PS, seriously, have there been any photos of the actual X2 released yet? Would by great to get some for the article, but I'm not asking for anything below-board. Glad to have you looking over the article -one of the best things you can do is to spot outright errors, and point us to the right sources to use. - BillCJ 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my main interest has been in the CH148/US101/HH-47 articles, as you probably noticed (VXX/MHP/CSARX). Having been heavily involved in the H92 for VXX and MHP has put me at an "advantage" for a lot of that information. I am eagerly awaiting the CH-148 deployment in early 2009. As far as V-22 goes, well us helo designers have our "opinions" on convertible AC, especially @ Sikorsky who will be directly competing with the BA609 with a commercial X2 variant. If you havent checked recently, Sikorsky has posted numerous new X2 mission brief pdfs [1]. (Just checked and it looks like they took down the high speed attack X2 one...ill have to dig it up for you). There are no publically released X2 photos, but that might change very soon with ground testing just around the corner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cefoskey (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sure to check out the .pdfs later today. Yes, an image of an attack X2 would be awesome. S-92/CH-148, huh? Check the edit history on the CH-148 page - it was one of the first articles I ever created, as a split from the S-92 page, originally as the H-92. the H-92 page eventually evolved to just cover the CH-148, and we put back the H-92 info on the S-92 page. From afar, I've always liked the S-92, and I've always thought it would have been a better airframe to replace the Navy CH-46s and HH-60s that the MH-60S "Knighthawk" is replacing. And a better VXX - with the problems Lockheed is having on the VH-71, it must be driving you guys nuts! I'd like to see the S-92 get a major US DOD contract, as I think it's a good design - I guess CSRAX is you last big shot for the time being, huh? I was a bit surprised to see Canada go that way, given their political history with the EH101/CH-149.

PS, any way you can find out if the CH-53K's GE engines have been assigned a T-number as yet? Just curious. Another user and I are working up an article for that new monster at User:Fnlayson/Sikorsky CH-53K. Feel free to stop by there too. - BillCJ 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think over the past year, a lot of the problems the VH-71 has been having warrants a big "told ya so" from all of us 92 guys but hey, thats the way the cookie crumbles. With all the controversy surroundign the CSARX procurement and the GAO upheld protests, we may yet see an H92 get into the US military inventory. The H92 winning MHP in canada is about as political of a decision as youll ever see. Not only do they already operate CH-149s, but they ended up paying a hefty cancellation fee, all because of opposing political parties being in control at the different time periods. Kind of like the USA...

Since Im an airframe guy, I havent been much into systems on 53K, and the only designation ive seen in passing is the GE38-1B youve listed on your page. --Cefoskey 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

X2 lifter derviative

I noticed a Sikorsky X2 High Speed lifter mentioned in an Aviation Week article. Found a briefing about it on Sikorsky's site here (April 2007). Neat that there could be a use for the coaxial rotor & prop design in the not to distant future. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Flight International article[2] says that by 2010 Sikorsky will decide on implementing X2 technology into a marketable design. --Born2flie (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

World speed record claim

Why was the text added stating that the X2 would not be eligible for the helicopter speed record?

Here are the official classes from the FAI sporting guidelines 2009:

2.2.1.5 Class E:

ROTORCRAFT	An aerodyne that derives the whole or a substantial part of its lift from a rotary wing system.
AUTOGYRO	A rotorcraft the wings of which are not provided with any form of direct power drive.
HELICOPTER	A rotorcraft with a power driven rotor system whose axis (axes) is (are) fixed and substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the rotorcraft.
TILT ROTORCRAFT	An aerodyne which derives the whole or a substantial part of its lift for vertical or hovering flight by tilting rotor(s) upward to a position substantially vertical, and in forward flight derives its lift from rotors and/or wings, and is capable of autorotation in the event of power failure.

As you can see, the X2 certainly falls into the rotorcraft category, and unless the FAI considers the pusher prop a "rotor system" then it also falls into the category of a helicopter. There is no mention of "compound helicopters" in their official regulations. As an interesting side note, the G-LYNX which set the current record attained about 7% of its total thrust from the turbine output with specialized exhaust ductwork. Therefore, in a purely technical sense, the G-LYNX would also have to be considered a "compound helicopter" due to its usage of turbine thrust in addition to rotor disc thrust --Cefoskey (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A pusher propeller makes it a compound helicopter, so it can't qualify as a conventional helicopter. The books I have call the Lynx record a helicopter one. Anyway the text states helicopter record, not rotorcraft record. -fnlayson (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The FAI makes no distinction between "compound helicopters" and "conventional helicopters" in all of their regulations and documentation. Please cite anything where the FAI states a "compound helicopter" doesn't "qualify" for a helicopter world speed record --Cefoskey (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but the FAI lists an overall rotorcraft (absolute) record and a specific helicopter (E-1) record here for the Lynx. -fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The absolute record in any category is the highest of all the sub categories for the class type, which is why the same entry is listed twice. The rotorcraft absolute record would be the max among all weight classes of helicopters (E-1x) and autogyros (E-3x). Its not a different classification per se. Ultimately, according to all FAI documentation, it would not be disqualified for being a compound, therefore I dont think the page should state such. --Cefoskey (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I reworded it to better match the wording in the reference (rotorcraft record). -fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the edit, and it can be altered later if the FAI decides to clarify their position regarding compound helicopters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cefoskey (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In order to be an official record, wouldn't the X2 have to complete the feat over a closed course? Is there any word from Sikorksy indicatieng they may go for the official record someday, perhaps after the bulk of the testing? Anyway, it's still eciting to see a compound helicopter with a future, and I hope Sikorsky is successful in its efforts this time. I have liked the S-69/XH-59 ABC demonstrator since I first saw a pic of it in the early 80s, so much that whan I started creating article on WP, Sikorsky S-69 was one of the first. - BilCat (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They have Class E - Rotorcraft, so what are you all talking about? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were saying that before, but not stated as well. Two articles on Flight Global state 250 kt flight was unofficial here and here. Hopefully Sikorsky will make arrangements so an official record can be set. -fnlayson (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

When I went to the website, I didn't see that table above. They had Class E - Rotorcraft...Period, nothing else. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate record is probably category E.2 "Convertiplanes", of which the latest I can find is 356.3 km/h by D Efremov and crew in the Kamov Ka-22 on 7 October 1961 (Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1988–89, p.[52]) - which is slower than the Lynx - of course this is only the official record - according to its article, the Lockheed XH-51 reached a speed of 486.9 km/h (263 knots) - presumably not homologated by the FIA.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. FAI lists states some record classes are not listed on its web site on page http://records.fai.org. For class E, only E.1 and E.3 are listed, no E.2 data on the site. :( -fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have anything more precise about the speed reached than the rather vague "Over 250 knots"? Has it exceeded the speed reached by the turbojet assisted XH-51 yet? or the over 320 mph and over 361 mph of the jet assisted Sikorsky S-69 and Sikorsky S-72 respectively?

• Media reports indicate right at 250 knots in level flight. 265 knots is their next speed target.[3] -fnlayson (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the other (currently) faster rotorcraft in the X2 article - or would it be seen as baiting?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe mention something like: "265 knots is the next goal for the X2 team. This will break the 263-knot top speed of the turbojet-assisted Lockheed XH-51 Compound." Otherwise it'll probably serve as baiting as you say. -fnlayson (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The XH-51 had stub wings that provided lift. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps one should mention the 255 knots, newly achieved by the Eurocopter X3 team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.109.123.82 (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cruise speed

Cruise speed: 250 knots (287.5 mph, 460 km/h)I think this should be in Max speed section as you can see how can you Cruise faster than your current top speed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.101.51 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A cruise speed of 250 kts was the goal of the program, which is what the specs reflected, as it hadn't flown to that point. As of Sept. 16, 2010, that speed has been reached, and Sikorsky is shooting for 265 kts by the end of the year. How fast it will actually go remains to be seen, as this is an experimental program. Sikorsky has stated that it can do 250 kts at 80% power, but I don't know what power setting is normal for cruise, if there even is one. - BilCat (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Anyone else notice that Stephen Trimble seems to be the goto guy for news on this aircraft. I think a variety of sources would be better. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the cites of his material appear to be about test flights, which is genaerally not info one gets wrong,and isn't usually opinion or analysis. The primary reason he's cited so often here is that he is usually first to publish the reports, and FlightGlobal is read by many of the aviation editors on WP, myself included. It's actually better to cite such a publication than company press releases, which is often all we have available to cite. Do you have some reason to question his (or his publisher's) reliability? - BilCat (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Does not really matter to me. Trimble and Flight Global/International seems to put out articles sooner and with more details. For example the latest free article on Aviationweek.com was in March and the articles on airforcesmonthly.com are short. If you find additional sources, please add them. -fnlayson (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not feeling the love here.  ;) heheh --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• You made a fair point. I just wanted to state my side of things. ;) -fnlayson (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Article date format

I disapprove of the recent change of date formats to ISO 8601 - dates like 2012-06-19 are less readable (my main point) and more ambiguous than 19 June 2012, and does not blend well with other ways of using timestamps such as "the years 2011-12" as well as numbers in general such as IDs for celestial objects. The use of ISO8601 has ambiguity because many still use the old way of Month-day-year (06-19-2012) and other variations (which should be abolished) and will likely continue to do so for many years, but Wikipedia is not the place for that battle. Unfortunately, these changes were cobbled together with a change to SI-units which I somewhat approve of, so I want to know more wiki-opinions before taking action. TGCP (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Performance Specifications: False Maximal Speed Information

I have corrected the maximal speed declaration in the section: Specification - Performance from 260 knots to 250 knots because the maximal speed is always the maximal speed in horizontal flight and not in dive flight! Which stands correctly in the section: Operational History and in the attached Link. There is no information about the cruise flight, because this is an experimental helicopter! Therefore there is no need of an economic beneficial speed information. --MBelzer (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)