VoiceofReason
Nothing new about this. The AH-56 Cheyenne hit 244mph in level flight 40 years ago now. Same basic system, just not twin rotors.
Derek Howe
awesome, this helo blows the old blackhawks outta the water. Hopefully it becomes a reality with all the US' budget woes.
Kevin Thomas
Hitler had a design very simular to this...
Marke
The AH-56 Cheyenne hit 244mph in level flight 40 years ago now. Same basic system, just not twin rotors. VoiceofReason3rd March, 2013 @ 08:31 pm PST Dang right ... with stub wings rather than twin contra-rotors ... similar performance, very advanced setup for the time ... makes you wonder how these decisions get made .. suddenly its good again? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JikYhxN-awk This is good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2lTuLF40BI&feature=player_embedded
StWils
"Similar in Appearance" is not that big a deal. The venerable DC3 is still one of the best aircraft ever built and many built during WWII are still flying. The big difference here is that steady technological innovation will enable an aircraft that is lighter, stiffer, much stronger, with vastly improved controls and behaviour, coupled with far better operability and maintainability than preceding aircraft. The UH1 Huey is a great chopper but it needed something like 8 hours of maintenance for every 16 hours flying. The Blackhawk's numbers are far better. This design has contrarotating rotors that historically have always flown well but been severe maintenance problems. If the wear & tear issues go away with modern materials then the low speed hover failure that knocked down the SF Chopper that crashed on landing on Bin Laden's crib might just be a bad memory. Finally, many aircraft, such the Huey and the DC3 would be even better if refreshed in modern materials, manufacturing technique, modern digital avionics, etc.
dugnology
The AH-56 Cheyenne and the AH-66 Comanche project were both technologically ahead of their times and very costly projects. The Cheyenne's range and speed were the result of using the wings to unload the rotor, resulting in more of a gyro than an helo at speed. It would be interesting in adding wings to this x-2 technology, but it really depends on the mission. The wings and a pusher prop do nothing for hot, high hover requirements. Both of these helos required an anti-torque rotor which the X-2 does not, a big benefit when it comes to noise, safety and complexity.
H Robinson
According to the spokeperserson at the Honda Classic where this baby was on disply yesterday, they have $70 million in this baby and still know orders. The twin counterrotating blades and 5 blade pusher at the rear makes it the fastest bird in the sky.
Slowburn
While I see no reason for this to fail, I would prefer to see the Army looking at either something with the layout of the Eurocopter X-3 or a new tilt-rotor (non-folding airframe, and at least 9-bladed rotors) The V-22 suffers from poor design decisions made to make her carrier compatible. re; Doug Halkenhauser The real reason the AH-56 Cheyenne was killed was that the Air Force objected to the Army having a propeller driven fixed wing attack plane at the same time as the aircraft was having control problems. Congress sided with the Air Force. The RAH-66 Comanche aside from supposing to being a stealth aircraft was a conventional helicopter. had it been as stealthy as it was advertised to be probably would have survived the mismanagement and cost overruns.
Stephen N Russell
any chance for civilian use IE air tours over Hawaii.
Marke
StWils 4th March, 2013 @ 09:42 am PST "....steady technological innovation will enable an aircraft that is lighter, stiffer, much stronger, with vastly improved controls and behaviour, coupled with far better operability and maintainability than preceding aircraft...." I think you are correct in that an aircraft designed and built now will be a substantial improvement and contain more advanced technology than one designed and built 40 years ago.