These 2 Futuristic Aircraft Will Compete to Replace the Army’s Black Hawk
(www.military.com)
🚁 FREE CHOPPER RIDES 🚁
Comments (11)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Yep, pick the counter rotating stable pusher. It’s got to be fast, nimble and safer
Agility is actually a smaller consideration than speed and range for this particular mission
Given the history of the Osprey and the numerous crashes caused by pilot error, I don't see the tilt-rotor heli being chosen.
The tilt rotor actually operates different than the osprey. Each airframe config has its own sets of risks and tradeoffs, which have to be weighed against the mission set.
How is it different? I understand computers have the ability to reduce the risk of pilot error, but I feel like the concept of tilt-rotor was tarnished forever by the Osprey.
They really improved the ospreys flight controls. The new tilt rotor pivots differently, and gets away from the mechanical problem found on the osprey. I believe the blades are a bit longer top reduce disc loading, which can reduce some of the wake vortex issues.
Plus, the flight controls should be better and fully fly by wire.
I'm not a fan of the longer blades. It is very clear the aircraft can only land in VTOL configuration due to the blade length.
If speed and range are priorities, tilt rotor will always be considered.
One is just the Sikorsky S-69 from 1973, the other is a Black Hawk with the Osprey's wing on top of it.
Not that is a bad thing.
The B-2, just the Northrop YB-49 from 1947.
Still see Hueys flying past, nearly every day. A Chinook flew by a few months ago. Need to get some new helicopters in the sky.
Not looking into the details right now, but will pick the Boeing-Sikorsky.
.
A link on that page, another story:
Kamala Harris does not care if terrorists burn down cities, but a few trees around Lake Tahoe get burned and she demands a bunch of Hercules to move there and put the fire out.
I'm closer to this than I would like to be. What they don't share is how they moved the fielding timelines up a few years, thereby ensuring that you the taxpayer will have to pay for it twice when the REAL avionics needed to make it tactically relevant are finally out of S&T development and the fleet has to be retrofitted.
As it stands they'll roll out with the absolute bare-bones air vehicles, and complain that it doesn't have enough features. The technologists were told to plan for date x, but now that its date x-y the 10 year developments wont be ready... all because of these assholes with stars on their shoulders that Trump was grousing about.