American high-speed helicopter SB-1 dispersed to 380 km / h


The prototype of the American military helicopter Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant, which should replace the aging Black Hawk in the future, set a new own speed record. As part of the tests held at the Sikorsky Flight Test Center, the device was able to accelerate to 205 knots (approximately 380 km / h).


Jane Macklin, director of Future Vertical Lift, a division of Sikorsky, a U.S. Army program development company, commented on this event as follows:

Exceeding the level of 200 knots is also important because it is greater than any ordinary helicopter speed, and we understand that speed and low level of manual control are crucial for holistic survivability in the future FVL environment.



Recall that the development of the SB-1 helicopter, nicknamed "Daring" is carried out as part of the FVL program, the main purpose of which is to create the latest vertical take-off machines. After 2030, they will replace the helicopters operating in the US Army. The device is equipped with two coaxial screws and a thrust propeller in the rear.

It is worth noting that test pilot Bill Fell, participating in the previous experiment, said that during the flight he used only 50% of the machine’s power. Consequently, the announced speed indicator is far from the limit of capabilities of SB-1 Defiant.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

28 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker 19 June 2020 14: 52
    -1
    • 1
    • 2
    I agree. You can even boast of such a helicopter. And we have aviation headed by Serdyukov, if I'm not mistaken. Does this have one optimization in his head ?!
  2. beeper Offline
    beeper 19 June 2020 19: 48
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    The Americans realized that they underestimated the Russian Ka-52 and the near future of helicopter engineering behind a coaxial scheme, and commendably mastered it.
    The Kamov company has a worthy competitor, which now has to compete not only for speed!
    1. Cyril Offline
      Cyril (Kirill) 19 June 2020 22: 33
      -1
      • 1
      • 2
      The coaxial circuit does not affect speed at all. The same Ka-52 in speed is no better than single-rotor helicopters. The coaxial scheme provides some advantages in maneuverability, although there are also disadvantages to this design.
      1. beeper Offline
        beeper 20 June 2020 00: 03
        +2
        • 3
        • 1
        hi You, Cyril, apparently are not familiar with the aerodynamics of helicopters and their rotors, if you write like this ?! winked
        Indeed, it is the counter-rotation of the coaxial rotors that makes it possible to achieve stabilization of the rotorcraft at such a high flight speed!
        The helicopter of the “classical” longitudinal scheme (with the main and tail rotors) and at lower flight speeds already begins to roll towards the “runaway” main rotor blades, due to a decrease in them relative speed of the streamlined air flow and a corresponding drop in the lifting force, in comparison with “on-going (air flow)” blades — with increasing flight speed, this increasing asymmetry of lifting force, without proper compensation, leads to side tipping and a plane crash.
        In helicopters of the “coaxial” scheme, such asymmetry of the lifting force of the “on-going” and “running-off” rotor blades is mutually compensated for over a wide range of flight speeds and does not roll over to one side.
        And the high speed of flight of the record holder helicopter is achieved not at all due to rotors, but in an airplane way - by a propelling propeller!
        1. Cyril Offline
          Cyril (Kirill) 20 June 2020 04: 26
          -1
          • 1
          • 2
          I'm really not an aerodynamic specialist. But for some reason you mentioned the Ka-52 in the context of the high-speed qualities of helicopters. Although the Ka-52 has a maximum speed even lower than that of a completely single-screw Apache. A speed record among helicopters was achieved on a single-rotor Link.
          1. beeper Offline
            beeper 20 June 2020 09: 56
            0
            • 1
            • 1
            hi Minuses are not mine, but I don’t put a plus either - because of your careless reading, Cyril.
            I don’t have a word about the speed characteristics of the Ka-52, as I wrote about the “coaxial scheme” as a guarantee of increasing the speed of helicopters in the near future.
            About the honest recognition by the Americans of their underestimation of the Kama cars, and in general, the prospects of the "coaxial scheme" are from American sources.
            As you can see - now they are successfully making up for their omission, so far - in the prototypes.
            You see, they’ll also master the “series” of high-speed helicopter hybrids - it’s just right for the Kamov company to work hard in this competition.
            I tried to explain to you popularly about the fundamental differences between the two main helicopter “circuits” and the speed advantages of the “coaxial circuit”.
    2. Observer2014 Offline
      Observer2014 20 June 2020 13: 12
      -4
      • 0
      • 4
      Quote: pishchak
      The Americans realized that they underestimated the Russian Ka-52 and the near future of helicopter engineering behind a coaxial scheme, and commendably mastered it.
      The Kamov company has a worthy competitor, which now has to compete not only for speed!

      What did the Americans understand there ?! Do you even understand a little about aviation and helicopter engineering ?! Where is the principle of operation of ka 52 and SB-1!

      1. Observer2014 Offline
        Observer2014 20 June 2020 13: 30
        -5
        • 0
        • 5
        So much for you and people like you fool Enlighten. At least here you should at least look before you make a wise guy out of yourself. laughing

        1. beeper Offline
          beeper 20 June 2020 15: 57
          0
          • 1
          • 1
          hi Thanks for the beautiful video, Observer 2014! good
          Oh, I love helicopters and sometimes regret that after school I didn’t want 100% guaranteed (by the head of one of the Soviet helicopter aviation schools yes ) become a pilot of these rotorcraft.
          Then there was no Afghan helicopter epic, where these machines proved to be in mountain super-piloting, which was completely different from the usual "boring work" of helicopter pilots, even in the Far North (our aircraft mechanics who serviced helicopters used to joke that with the Arctic minus 50 "they don’t need to" twist the nuts ", they say, just" spit on the nut and stick in place. " smile )
          If I knew that after an aviation school it would be possible to improvise so extreme in helicopter piloting “across the river”, and not “pull the strap” of a scheduled pilot in the Civil Air Fleet or “fly according to the regulations” in a peacetime airborne, then, of course, I would hesitate helicopter pilot! yes
          And in order to "enlighten" - to learn something new for yourself from yours, clearly neophytic (judging by your children's enthusiasm for what you saw ?!), I did not recognize and did not find anything new - except, shots from I didn’t see a cargo American “synchroper” from that angle.
          The Mi-10K even posed for me in flight, turning up for the most spectacular effect of the “frame”, in the 80s, when I shot the FED two black-and-white films of his work, for myself and the factory newspaper.
          At the controls of the first “Kamovs” and “Mi (including the then-latest Mi-8)” I was still a kid, more than once I sat down, “climbed” above and inside them, and I remember the story of the carrier’s vibration told by a test participant of the first “Mi” propeller and "saw Mile"! smile
          In principle, your first video, Observer 2014, also explains why the "coaxial scheme (like the" synchropert ") is more stable when flying at high speed (or against the wind).
          What I wrote about in the answers for aka Cyril (although, perhaps, this is also your account ?!)!

          I don’t even know why you are so boyishly "dressing up" by exposing yourself to be seen as so rude an ignoramus with a convex "inferiority complex" supposedly unable to absorb what has been read (do you really suffer from dyslexia? winked ), with such good “video search abilities” - why, at least in terms of “pictures” and “video clips”, they are not capable of self-education ?! request
          1. Cyril Offline
            Cyril (Kirill) 23 June 2020 23: 52
            0
            • 1
            • 1
            What I wrote about in the answers for aka Cyril (although, perhaps, this is also your account ?!)!

            No, we are different people.
            1. beeper Offline
              beeper 24 June 2020 07: 09
              +1
              • 1
              • 0
              Quote: Cyril
              What I wrote about in the answers for aka Cyril (although, perhaps, this is also your account ?!)!

              No, we are different people

              hi Thank you, dear Cyril, for bringing clarity to this question and for the additions in your comment below - I agree with you about Sikorsky and the maximum speed of the Mi-24 (enough groundbreaking machine for its time)! good
              But what about the Kamov firm’s achievements on the automatic swashplate of coaxial helicopters, which, like many other Soviet developments (ekranoplanes, Yak-141, An-70, ...), are practically for nothing (tricking into the promise of "joint cooperation" with almost no state funding, on "self-sufficiency", by Russian and Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers) went to the Americans and their NATO allies in the poor "holy 90s" - that's right! request
              1. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 24 June 2020 07: 17
                0
                • 1
                • 1
                But what about the Kamov firm's work on the automatic swash coaxial helicopters

                Why should Americans acquire Kamov’s designs for coaxial propeller swashplate if they have developed such helicopters since the 40s? They had a completely successful drone coaxial Gyrodyne QH-50, released in the amount of more than 700 devices. Did he fly without a swashplate?

                1. beeper Offline
                  beeper 24 June 2020 11: 12
                  +1
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  hi The minus was not mine - from me to you Plus for the right question! smile
                  It is no secret that the technology does not stand still, and especially in the aircraft industry, with its very stringent requirements for reliability and weight output.
                  In combat aviation, the aircraft’s survival under enemy fire, the flight resource for combat damage, is very important!
                  Therefore, past designs and concepts for building mechanisms here quickly become obsolete.
                  Swashplate - the most complex and defining part of coaxial helicopters! There are a lot of technical and theoretical nuances in it, and the Kamov company in this is still leading the world. At least, it was like that at that moment when the Americans "promised to cooperate" and borrowed "Kamov" know-how "under this mock cheaply for nothing! yes
                  1. Cyril Offline
                    Cyril (Kirill) 24 June 2020 11: 40
                    -1
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    Is there concrete evidence that the Americans borrowed something from the Kamov firm?

                    In general, as far as I know, the design of the rotors of the "Ryder" and the previous Sikorsky co-drivers is very different from those of the Kamov helicopters.
                    1. beeper Offline
                      beeper 24 June 2020 13: 17
                      +1
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      hi This is a long history of the 90s, repeatedly described in specialized literature and in the media.
                      Seek and find, Cyril. yes
                      The design of parts may be outwardly unlike their prototypes, as the tasks set differ and the materials used are improved.
                      Equipment, especially military technology, does not stand still - it is developing by leaps and bounds!
                      In high-speed helicopter hybrids, the lifting force is created by the rotors, and the ground speed is created by the thrusters. At high speed, the rotation of the rotors is slowed down and they perform the function of makeshift bearing surfaces, like those of aircraft wings. Watch the video of the Observer.
                      If you so want to get to the bottom of the processes - study, at least in a popular volume, the aerodynamics of helicopters - it is very interesting! wink
                      If you are applying for the role of a sort of "American lawyer", then this is for lawyers! smile
                      1. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) 24 June 2020 13: 29
                        -1
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        This is a long history of the 90s, repeatedly described in specialized literature and in the media.

                        Given the quality of the "specialized literature" and the media (as an example, the recent "news" about the "Russian components" allegedly found in the Mask ship), quite reasonable doubts arise in this information.

                        The design of parts may be outwardly unlike their prototypes.

                        The Ryder has a hard screw; the Kamov helicopters have a hinged mounting of the blades. I can’t judge, but it seems to me that the swashplate is different there. The basis of the "Ryder" (more precisely, its prototype X-2) was laid S-69, developed back in the 70s. There was no talk of any cooperation with Kamov at that time.

                        I do not detract from the achievements of our designers, but it is also not worth making the homeland of elephants from Russia.
                      2. beeper Offline
                        beeper 24 June 2020 13: 44
                        +1
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        hi We are talking about

                        Is there concrete evidence that the Americans borrowed something from the Kamov firm?

                        They borrowed, "on a blue eye" they requested the most "delicious developments" for "preliminary acquaintance", promising "cooperation", and then they "threw" not only Kamov, Yakovlev, Antonov air companies! request
                        Then, in the Deriban 90s, the Americans and many other "partners (Chinese and Indian too)" in our country (in the CIS countries) were well "saved" by "pulling" Soviet developments, including secret ones, and luring specialists!
                        What was going on with Mask, what other scandals are there - I don’t know about it, it’s for me “in cymbals”! yes
  • shadow Offline
    shadow 20 June 2020 18: 55
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    The Mi-24 has a maximum speed of 324 km / h. And he is much heavier than this. Yes, and I remember that someone boasted that they would accelerate to 500 km / h. And yes, they acquired the coaxial design from Kamov.
    1. Cyril Offline
      Cyril (Kirill) 23 June 2020 22: 57
      0
      • 1
      • 1
      Yes, and I remember that someone boasted that they would accelerate to 500 km / h.

      These are test flights, and they are not finished yet. And planned cruising he has a speed of 407 km / h, not 500. And the Mi-24 can only accelerate to 334 km / h, but its cruising speed is 270 km / h.

      And yes, they acquired the coaxial design from Kamov.

      The Americans created the first experimental helicopter with coaxial screws back in 1944 (Hiller UH-44). Kamov’s first ally, (Ka-8), by the way, took off only in 1947.

      Moreover, the Sikorsky company in 1973 created the S-69 helicopter - also with a coaxial arrangement of propellers.

      And now answer one simple question - how in 1944 or in 1972, American developers could "acquire the development" of the coaxial scheme from Kamov?
      1. shadow Offline
        shadow 26 June 2020 00: 48
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        Did you take the numbers from the unaware Wikipedia?)))) Cruising speed, this is not the maximum, do not confuse.
        Here are the other numbers)))

        http://army-world.ru/?page_id=1222

        Here, read and pay attention to the date of the article.

        https://lenta.ru/news/2020/03/07/avx/
        1. Cyril Offline
          Cyril (Kirill) 26 June 2020 03: 39
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          Cruising speed, this is not the maximum, do not confuse.

          I don’t confuse, therefore, I deliberately highlighted both concepts. The cruising speed of an aircraft is always less than its maximum speed.

          Here are the other numbers)))

          I quote from your first link (about Mi-24):

          Cruising speed: 260 km / h
          Maximum horizontal flight speed: 340 km / h
          maximum speed: 360 km / h

          Now look at the characteristics of the "Ryder" - well, for example, here in this article on "Topwar" (2013 - https://topwar.ru/25118-sikorksy-s-97-raider-skorostnoy-mnogocelevoy-vintokryl.html):

          It is worth recognizing that this sample of engineering looks somewhat unusual. S-97 is equipped with two coaxial screws located close to each other, but it does not move forward with their help, but with the help of the rear pushing screw. As a result of this, it is possible to eliminate the excessive complexity of the design of the coaxial helicopter - at the cost of developing a separate mechanism that is responsible for the horizontal movement of the machine. Experimental machine reported was able to reach a speed of 486 km / hbut for the development of the company Sikorsky is not a record. Even in the 70s of the last century, the helicopter S-69 managed to achieve such speeds.

          Sikorsky's company representatives promise that the S-97 Raider will be able to develop cruising speed of the order of 426 km / h, and the maximum flight range can be 1300 km. Both that and other indicator for such a machine looks more than solid and radically exceeds the performance of all modern combat helicopters in the world.

          Now about the article on the "Ribbon". First, it refers to the AVX company, not the Sikorsky company that developed Ryder. Secondly, I quote:

          Publications note that the engineering solutions that Kamov used in the construction of the Ka-50 and Ka-52 helicopters allowed AVX to reduce the distance between the main lower and upper screws and reduce the total weight of the aircraft.

          So, at the Sikorsky S-69 helicopter, built and tested back in the 70s, the distance between the propellers was already half that of Kamov’s machines.

          You, as always, look in a book, but you cannot understand what you saw and read.
          1. shadow Offline
            shadow 26 June 2020 12: 12
            +1
            • 1
            • 0
            Only now they have done so far only what is written here. And at the same time, they received technologies from Kamov that helped the latter develop a project for the Compound Coaxial Helicopter (CCH) reconnaissance and attack helicopter, writes The Aviationist. And the fact that they developed there from some years there is not important, because they still had to buy Soviet technology, they themselves could not do anything. If they could, they did not apply.
            That's just the Mi-24 can not only accelerate, as you write, but also fly at this speed.
            1. Cyril Offline
              Cyril (Kirill) 26 June 2020 14: 56
              0
              • 1
              • 1
              Only now they have done so far only what is written here. And at the same time, they received technologies from Kamov that helped the latter develop a project for the Compound Coaxial Helicopter (CCH) reconnaissance and attack helicopter, writes The Aviationist.
              And the fact that they developed there from some years there is not important, because they still had to buy Soviet technology, they themselves could not do anything. If they could, they did not apply.

              Is this your third time repeating that AVX and Sikorsky are two completely different offices? Sikorsky did not contact Kamov, only AVX contacted.

              That's just the Mi-24 can not only accelerate, as you write, but also fly at this speed.

              It can fly, but in a very short time, due to the high fuel consumption and increased loads on the structure and engines. A "rider" in cruising (that is, in a long and economical) mode is able to fly more than 60 km / h faster than the maximum speed of the Mi-24. And the maximum speed of the Ryder, even in the current test version, exceeds the maximum speed of the Mi-24 by 120 km / h.
              1. shadow Offline
                shadow 26 June 2020 14: 59
                +1
                • 1
                • 0
                Short, how much? Is the number possible? Yes, I did not write that the Mi-24 is flying faster. Why are you drawing me this?
                If Sikorsky has been dealing with the coaxial circuit for so long, then why are there no such helicopters in the US Army?
                1. Cyril Offline
                  Cyril (Kirill) 26 June 2020 15: 51
                  0
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  Short, how much? Is the number possible?

                  The numbers depend on the Mi-24 modification, there are a lot of versions there, the engines are also different. You can calculate the fuel consumption for each modification.
                  The maximum speed on helicopters and airplanes is cut in extreme cases - mainly to escape from another aircraft or, say, an anti-aircraft missile. They patched in this mode for a very short time (ours, that the Americans), because the fuel consumption is huge. The same Mi-24, even at normal speed, has a flight range of only 450 km, at maximum speed there will be one and a half to two less.

                  Yes, I did not write that the Mi-24 is flying faster. Why are you drawing me this?

                  Why did you mention him then?

                  If Sikorsky has been dealing with the coaxial circuit for so long, then why are there no such helicopters in the US Army?

                  Firstly, I did not say that the Sikorsky company has been engaged all this time since the very 70s. They then created a prototype coaxial rotorcraft S-69, tested it. But he did not find a special response from the American military. The speed qualities of the helicopters that existed at that time suited them. Then, already in the 90s, when the military had a need for faster cars, they returned to this scheme first on the X-2, from which the Ryder grew.

                  Secondly, the Americans did not use the co-aligners simply because helicopters have no cardinal advantages in this scheme, but in production, repair and maintenance it is more complicated than the classical scheme, moreover, it increases the silhouette of the device and negatively affects its speed.

                  Moreover, Americans did their co-equals and even successfully tested them. I have already given examples above. But for the above reasons, preference was given to the classical scheme.
                  1. shadow Offline
                    shadow 26 June 2020 16: 19
                    +1
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    Well, if you can’t say the numbers, then there’s nothing to talk about. There are no advantages, well, well. Yandex to help about the advantages and disadvantages of the coaxial scheme.
                    Regarding - they preferred the classic. So this may be because they could not finish the car to the mind, as with the F-22 and F-35 (they released raw cars, and then some models had to be removed from production). And so they abandoned this scheme. After all, the Americans do not care for money, they can always print, as they themselves say and as they do now.
                    And what is it that I wrote about the Mi-24? Wrote so it was. I wanted and wrote, my personal business. Do not like it, do not read. And you don’t need to ascribe your fantasies to me.
                    1. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) 26 June 2020 20: 27
                      0
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      Well, if you can’t say the numbers, then there’s nothing to talk about.

                      The fact that at maximum speed the aircraft consumes maximum fuel is clear to anyone who is friends with the head. But I forgot that you do not belong to such people.

                      There are no advantages, well, well. Yandex to help about the advantages and disadvantages of the coaxial scheme.

                      I did not say that co-aligners have no advantages at all. I said that there are no cardinal advantages. In addition, co-aligners have flaws. The combination of advantages and disadvantages makes the coaxial scheme no more practical than the classical scheme. As a rule, when talking about the Russian Ka-50/52, they distinguish such their main advantage over Western combat helicopters as greater maneuverability. Technically - yes, they are more maneuverable, they can carry out the famous “funnel”, fly back and side at almost the same speed as forward. The Ka-50/52 is even called the only helicopters that can perform a "dead loop", although this is not so - there is a video where the German "Tiger" and the American "Apache" also make it. It’s only in real combat operations that this maneuver is not used by helicopters - firstly, because helicopters do not enter into air combat, and secondly, because co-pilots with such a maneuver are at great risk of overlapping blades. The fact that this risk is great is indicated by several disasters with the death of test pilots on these same Ka-50/52.

                      About the funnel. Like, its advantage is that the helicopter can concentrate fire on one target, while shifting to the side, avoiding the return fire from the ground. But, again, ground troops usually use MANPADS against helicopters, and the "funnel" does not save them from homing missiles.

                      As a result, the advantages of co-alignment in maneuverability is a purely theoretical thing, in practice, the classic, that coaxial combat helicopters rarely fall into situations where this same agility is required. But production, repair and maintenance is just a constant problem, and here the helicopters of the classical scheme win.

                      (They released raw cars, and then some models had to be removed from production).

                      F-22 was discontinued not because it is "raw", but because it is expensive. In addition, they released almost 200 pieces - this amount is more than enough against potential opponents (China and Russia) so far.

                      Well, the F-35 hasn’t been removed from production, all are available.

                      So it may be because they could not finish the car to mind

                      S-69 flew quite normally for itself, even a speed record was set among helicopters, which is still not broken (480 km / h). But the military was not interested because this helicopter was technically complicated and expensive, and ordinary classical helicopters coped with all the tasks facing army aviation at that time.
                      1. shadow Offline
                        shadow 26 June 2020 21: 23
                        +1
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        And you read how you wrote. If there is not enough mind, to understand one’s scribble is for life: the inability to realize what is written, even by oneself, which was repeatedly noticed by me. The numbers are not given. Therefore - you do not know. As soon as they poked his face, he ran to insult him, since there is nothing more to say. However, this has already become the norm for you.
                        It describes better about the advantages and disadvantages.

                        https://topwar.ru/170269-soosnaja-komponovka-vintov-vertoleta-pljusy-i-minusy.html

                        Regarding the overlap of the blades, this problem has long been solved by increasing the distance between the screws. In addition, in Chechnya and Syria, Kamov’s vehicles took part in the hostilities. And they showed themselves very well.
                        As for - the F-22 was officially removed because of the high cost, but in fact it was removed because of this, but you, as always, are not up to date.
                        Here, read why this aircraft was discontinued.

                        https://soldatru.ru/read.php?id=2355

                        And about the F-35, which, if my memory serves me, has 966 malfunctions, 111 of which are significant, it’s better not to stutter at all, especially since another one has now been added - tail loss in supersonic.
                        And quantity does not mean quality.
                        So, to threaten $ 2,25 trillion on Bullshit-35 is it not expensive?)))) Despite the fact that this plane lost a real air battle even F-16 with hanging tanks)))