The Piasecki X-49A Speedhawk. Can fly 200 mph. Now there’s one cool bird! Kinda looks like an AH-56 and a UH-60 had a love child! Check the video on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5ihDwz5l7s
Jon, you know the skinny on this beast? Any chance she’ll make it into the arsenal?
Ray
PS: This would be a great kit opportunity, don’t you think?
That is just too cool. Question is, what would it be used for besides fast troop deployment?
Medivac is what I would say. critically wounded soldiers where every second counts. Either that, or take the wings and put hard points on them. High speed DAP.
From what I’ve heard, there are already designs to incorporate the technology into the Apache. I haven’t heard anything direct from the project, but the rumblings I’ve heard have been very good. Apparently someone had some sense of history and they have been utilizing the data gained from the Cheyenne program.
Man, why is it everyone wants to see a friggin DAP?! The thing is overloaded and can’t do the friggin mission that the Apache can! All that this configuration would do for a DAP is make it even easier for them to overshoot their targets and put friendlies in danger.
DAP= Dependent on Apache Parts
I’m keeping as close an eye on this one as I can!
Jon
LOL, cause I worked on DAP’s, Jon. Thats why. I dont dispute that the cobras and apaches are better, I just always enjoyed my hawks. thats all. I personally think its better suited to medivac use. Thats where speed counts.
Ah yes, I did seem to forget that point.
Sorry. Just a tad sick of Hawk guys wanting to be attack. It gets under your skin after a bit.
If I get told one more time that “we can carry our own reloads into combat” I think I’m gonna puke.
In any case, the X-49 is an incredible piece of technology and will hopefully “bring back the Cheyenne” so to speak. I’m lookin forward to flying an Apache at 240kts!
Jon
Jon,
I’ve seen the drawings of the ringtail on Apaches. The reason for the increased speed as I understand it is to evade surface fired antiaircraft weapons. I don’t know if 200 mph is enough for that, though. It would seem a fasy medivac would be a good thing! Wonder what a ringtail would look like on a Huey!
Check this page for a little more info on the RINGTAIL design:
http://www.stratmag.com/issueMar-15/page03.htm
Ray
Ray,
Thanks for the link! I’m gonna see if I can get up to Piasecki sometime soon. Who knows! Since I’m kinda in the neighborhood, it’d be really cool to see in person.
I think you’re right about 200+ kts not being enough to completely evade anti-aircraft fire, but I think with the new countermeasures systems, it will allow flight crews minimum exposure time while maximizing weapons capability. You can’t outrun bullets, but at 200+kts, you can definitely make it a lot harder for the guy pulling the trigger to track you!
Jon
Piasecki has been pushing a return to this technology at least as long as I’ve been in this business (30 years this month). Every few years we see artist’s renderings of an Apache or Blackhawk or something else with a ringtail pusher prop. I was actually surprised that they got the money to build it, since it really isn’t anything that hadn’t already been done with the Piasecki PV-2 in the early 1960s. The Army has never considered it usefeul enough to adapt for production. Comanche had a dash speed of 170 kts (~200 mph) without it. In a shallow dive, we could easily get over 200 kts. Not having been in the councils that made design decisions (I’m a tester - we test whatever they give us), my guess is that the design guys didn’t figure the additional speed/cruise efficiency was worth it. To begin with, the ducted tail would be less efficient and responsive than a tail rotor at low speeds. Second, you’ll always have a forward component of thrust. Third, more controls back there, more weight and complexity. Add to that the fact that tactics since the Cheyenne have favored low and slow.
Comanche,
I’m guessing from your response that it will be a cold day in the netherworlds before the US fields the ringtail technology on a Blackhawk or anything else. Did I read that right?
Ray
Wouldn’t this kind of be the opposite end from the Osprey? (Helicopter / Airplane vs Airplane / Helicopter).
I wonder if the Airforce would pull the old “its a fixed wing” rant if the Army actually went ahead with this, I understand they did that with one of the 60’s vtol designs the Army tested.
Very cool bird! Would look nice on my shelf! he he :-))
Funny you mention that. The Air Force is pulling that exact stunt with the Joint Cargo Aircraft right now, claiming that the Army shouldn’t be in the short-haul fixed-wing cargo business. Of course, they’re now saying this after contracts have been signed, agreements made, etc. Thankfully it looks like the Army’s gonna win out on this one. C-27J here we come!
Jon
Let’s just say that, based on what I know (admittedly limited) there isn’t anything here the Army hasn’t studied in depth before and rejected. Somewhere around here I have a summary of previous rotary wing R&D that I wrote in the late '70s (never published). There were several ideas for higher speed compound rotorcraft studied in the '50s and '60s - fixed wings, tail propellers, auxiliary jet thrust, variable diameter rotor systems, slowed/stopped rotors, etc. Eventually the Army decided that the speed range for the pure helicopter was just fine for the tactics expected in the foreseeable future. I haven’t heard of anything in the roles and missions world that says the tactical role of the helicopter is expected to change to require higher speeds.
Remember also that money is very limited for the foreseeable future. Comanche was cancelled to pay for the helicopters we need for the current fight. Two of the ships we’re going to buy are off-the-shelf to save money (LUH and my new program, ARH). The only major new helicopter airframe development program even in planning is a new heavy-lifter. Given the emphasis on the current fight, and the lack of dollars, a major mod program to increase speed doesn’t seem like a winner at the budget table. Higher speed for a helicopter is a cool idea, but I’d place the odds of anything like the ringtail being adopted for production somewhere on the very slim side.
Dan H.
The whole army / airforce issue really seems kind of backwards. The USAF is often criticised for not fielding the aircraft the Army says it needs (low speed high loiter time ground attack) and the Army has to try and jam helicopters into roles a fixed wing might be better for because of an under estimation by the USAF what helicopters would develop into (allowed the Army to use helicopters when they were flimsy underpower egg beaters).
Seems like it would make everybody happy if the USAF just focused on air superiority, strategic bombing and high speed tacical aviation (fighter bombers) which is what they like anyway, and just let the Army have the unsexy flying tanks (Skyraider, A-10 types) that they keep nagging the USAF for. Oh, wait a minute that might actually make sense, nevermind I forgot who I was talking about, logic has no place in government.
[:O] You’re making too much SENSE!!!
Stop the insanity! The debate has gone on for years, and no one is willing to give an inch on it. When the Army was about to get the A-10, the Air Force suddenly decided that we could have the airframe, but they were keeping the gun. So, we’re flying Apaches instead. Great platform and I love flying it. But an A-10 would just be FUN (and a lot less work!).
Jon
Just looking at the picture I don’t have much faith in the design. It looks like maybe a photoshop job. I’d love to see how they are going to control that beast at a hover sans any kind of tail rotor… Or with out the long rods (push pull tubes) from the main rotor system to the swash plate.[swg]
Basically the only way that thing is going to work is if they make the Blackhawk into a counter rotating-coaxial machine… maybe.[8-]
NASA 736,
Definitely not a Photoshop job. Check the video to see her fly!
Ray
nope, the VTDP is a functional design and it does work!
Well, I’ll be dipped!!! Rube Goldberg is alive and well [:-^] I stand corrected.