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.
Ad
The publication is looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]
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
    steelmaker 19 June 2020 14: 52
    -1
    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
    beeper 19 June 2020 19: 48
    +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, with whom now they will have to compete not only for speed!
    1. Cyril Online Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 19 June 2020 22: 33
      -1
      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
        beeper 20 June 2020 00: 03
        +2
        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 main and tail rotor) and at lower flight speeds already begins to roll towards the "runaway" rotor blades, due to a decrease in the relative speed of the air flow around them and the corresponding drop in lift, compared with "oncoming (on the air flow)" blades - with an increase in flight speed, this increasing asymmetry of lift, without proper compensation, leads to overturning on the side and a plane crash.
        In "coaxial" helicopters, such asymmetry of the lifting force of the "oncoming" and "running away" rotor blades is mutually compensated in a wide range of flight speeds and no turning over to the side occurs.
        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 Online Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 20 June 2020 04: 26
          -1
          I'm not really an aerodynamicist. 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-rotor Apache. And the speed record among helicopters was achieved on the single-rotor Lynx.
          1. beeper Offline beeper
            beeper 20 June 2020 09: 56
            0
            hi Minuses are not mine, but I don’t put a plus either - because of your careless reading, Cyril.
            I do not have a word about the speed qualities of the Ka-52, as I wrote about the "coaxial scheme" as a guarantee of increasing the speed of helicopters in the near future.
            This is from American sources about the honest recognition by the Americans of their underestimation of the Kamov machines, and, in general, the prospects of the "coaxial scheme".
            As you can see - now they are successfully making up for their omission, so far - in the prototypes.
            You look, and the "series" of high-speed helicopter hybrids will be mastered - just right and the company "Kamov" to tighten up in this competition.
            I tried to explain the fundamental differences between the two main helicopter "schemes" and the speed advantages of the "coaxial scheme" above.
    2. Observer2014 Offline Observer2014
      Observer2014 20 June 2020 13: 12
      -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, with whom now they will have 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
        Observer2014 20 June 2020 13: 30
        -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
          beeper 20 June 2020 15: 57
          0
          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.
          At that time, there was no Afghan helicopter epic, where these machines showed themselves in mountain super-pilotage, which was not at all similar to the usual "boring work" of helicopter pilots, even in the Far North (our aircraft mechanics who served helicopters used to joke that when the Arctic "minus 50 "they don't need to" twist the nuts ", they say, it's enough to" spit on the nut and stick it in place. " smile )
          If I knew that after graduating from the aviation school it would be possible to improvise so extreme in helicopter flight "across the river", and not "pull the strap" of a flight pilot in the Civil Air Fleet or "fly according to regulations" in a peacetime aviation unit, then, of course, I would not hesitate helicopter pilot! yes
          And as for the "enlightenment" - to learn something new for yourself from your, clearly neophyte (judging by your childish enthusiasm for what he saw ?!), "finds" - I did not learn and did not see anything new - perhaps, frames with I have not seen the American cargo synchropter from this angle.
          "Mi-10K" even posed for me in flight, turning to make the "frame" more effective, in the 80s, when I was filming "FED" two black and white films of his work, for myself and the factory newspaper.
          At the helm of the first "Kamov" and "Mi" (including the newest then Mi-8), I was still a kid, I sat down more than once, "climbed" on them from above and inside, and I remember the story of the vibration of the carrier screw and "Mile saw"! smile
          Basically, in your first video, Observer2014, it tells why the "coaxial scheme (like the" synchropteric ")" is more stable when flying at high speed (or upwind).
          What I wrote about in the answers for aka Cyril (although, perhaps, this is also your account ?!)!

          I don’t even know why you “show off” in such a boyish way, exposing yourself to such a rude ignoramus with a convex “inferiority complex”, ostensibly incapable of absorbing what you read (do you really suffer from dyslexia? winked ), with such good "video search abilities" - why, at least, by "pictures" and "video clips" are incapable of self-education ?! request
          1. Cyril Online Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 23 June 2020 23: 52
            0
            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
              beeper 24 June 2020 07: 09
              +1
              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 developments of Kamov's company on the swashplate of coaxial helicopters, which, like many other Soviet developments (ekranoplanes, Yak-141, An-70, ...), practically for nothing (by deception, under the promise of "joint cooperation" with those who remained practically without state funding, on "self-sufficiency", Russian and Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers) went to the Americans and their NATO European allies in the poor "holy 90s" - that's right! request
              1. Cyril Online Cyril
                Cyril (Kirill) 24 June 2020 07: 17
                0
                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
                  beeper 24 June 2020 11: 12
                  +1
                  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.
                  The swash plate is the most difficult and defining part of coaxial helicopters! It has a lot of technical and theoretical nuances, and Kamov is still the world's leading company in all of this. At least, this was the case at the time when the Americans "promised to cooperate" and, on this sly, cheaply and for nothing "borrowed" Kamov's "know-how"! yes
                  1. Cyril Online Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 24 June 2020 11: 40
                    -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 Ryder and Sikorsky's previous co-axes differs greatly from those of Kamov's helicopters.
                    1. beeper Offline beeper
                      beeper 24 June 2020 13: 17
                      +1
                      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 Online Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 24 June 2020 13: 29
                        -1
                        This is a long history of the 90s, repeatedly described in specialized literature and in the media.

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

                        The design of parts may be outwardly unlike their prototypes.

                        The "Ryder" has a rigid propeller, while the Kamov helicopters have articulated blades. I do not presume to judge, but it seems to me that the swashplate is different there. The "Ryder" (more precisely, his X-2 prototype) was based on the S-69, developed back in the 70s. At that time, there was no talk of any cooperation with Kamov.

                        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
                        beeper 24 June 2020 13: 44
                        +1
                        hi We are talking about

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

                        They borrowed, "with a blue eye" they demanded the most "tasty developments" for "preliminary acquaintance", promising "cooperation", and then they "threw" not only the air companies "Kamova", "Yakovlev", "Antonov"! request
                        Then, in the Driban 90s, the Americans and many other "partners (Chinese and Indian too)" in our country (in the CIS countries) got away well, "pulling" Soviet developments, including secret ones, and enticing specialists!
                        What happened to Musk, what other scandals were there - I don’t know about it, it’s like cymbals for me! yes
  • shadow Offline shadow
    shadow 20 June 2020 18: 55
    +1
    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 Online Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 23 June 2020 22: 57
      0
      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.

      Now, answer one simple question - how in 1944 or 1972, American developers could "acquire the development" of a coaxial scheme from Kamov?
      1. shadow Offline shadow
        shadow 26 June 2020 00: 48
        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 Online Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 26 June 2020 03: 39
          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 "Lenta". First, it refers to the AVX company, not the Sikorsky company, which developed the 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, the S-69 helicopter of the Sikorsky company, built and tested back in the 70s, the distance between the propellers was already half that of the Kamov machines.

          You, as always, look in a book, but you cannot understand what you saw and read.
          1. shadow Offline shadow
            shadow 26 June 2020 12: 12
            +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.
            That's just the Mi-24 can not only accelerate, as you write, but also fly at this speed.
            1. Cyril Online Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 26 June 2020 14: 56
              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.

              Would you like to repeat for the third time that AVX and Sikorsky are two completely different offices? Sikorsky did not contact Kamov, only AVX.

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

              It can fly, but for a very short time, due to high fuel consumption and increased loads on the structure and engines. And the Ryder in cruising (that is, in a continuous and economical) mode is capable of flying more than 60 km / h faster than the maximum speed of the Mi-24. And the maximum speed of "Ryder" even in the current test version exceeds the maximum speed of the Mi-24 by 120 km / h.
              1. shadow Offline shadow
                shadow 26 June 2020 14: 59
                +1
                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 Online Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 26 June 2020 15: 51
                  0
                  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?

                  First, I didn’t say that the Sikorsky company had been doing business all this time since the 70s. They then created a prototype of the coaxial rotorcraft S-69, tested it. But he did not find much response from the American military. The high-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 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
                    shadow 26 June 2020 16: 19
                    +1
                    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 Online Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 26 June 2020 20: 27
                      0
                      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-axes have no advantages at all. I said that there are no cardinal advantages. In addition, the co-axes have disadvantages. The balance of advantages and disadvantages makes the coaxial design no better in terms of practicality than the classical design. As a rule, when they talk about the Russian Ka-50/52, their main advantage over Western combat helicopters is highlighted as their greater maneuverability. Technically - yes, they are more maneuverable, they can perform the famous "funnel", fly backward and sideways at almost the same speed as forward. The Ka-50/52 is even called the only helicopters that can perform a "loopback", although this is not the case - there is a video where the German "Tiger" and the American "Apache" also do it. But in real combat operations, this maneuver by helicopters is not used - firstly, because helicopters do not enter an air battle, and secondly, because co-axes with such a maneuver have a great risk of overlapping blades. The fact that this risk is great is evidenced by several accidents with the death of test pilots on these very Ka-50 / 52s.

                      About the "funnel". They say that its benefit lies in the fact that the helicopter can concentrate fire on one target, while simultaneously shifting to the side, avoiding return fire from the ground. But, again, ground forces usually use MANPADS against helicopters, but the "funnel" does not save 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).

                      The F-22 was taken out of production not because it is "raw", but because it is expensive. In addition, almost 200 of them were produced - this number is more than enough against potential opponents (China and Russia) until now.

                      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
                        shadow 26 June 2020 21: 23
                        +1
                        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)))