Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant

Looks like we are at BERP IV iteration. I had no idea about this development. I wonder what kind of tip they use for these new compounds. The blackhawk has the simple swept tip.

https://www.flightglobal.com/berp-iv-gi ... 52.article

https://dspace-erf.nlr.nl/xmlui/bitstre ... sequence=1

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/B ... c9adc?p2df

Looks like we are at BERP IV iteration. I had no idea about this development. I wonder what kind of tip they use for these new compounds. The blackhawk has the simple swept tip.

HH-60W has the same growth rotor blades found on the S-92. Same anhedral.

Defiant-X: Sikorsky, Boeing Unveil FLRAA Design

The companies’ proposed Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) to replace the UH-60 is a sleeker, stealthier version of the prototype SB>1 Defiant now in flight tests. Can it beat Bell’s tiltrotor?

WASHINGTON: Sikorsky and Boeing did “hundreds of trade studies” and consulted extensively with the Army to refine their SB>1 Defiant compound helicopter into the new Defiant-X, officially unveiled today.



What’s the difference? The companies were cagey about details, and they said they may make further tweaks. But between their guarded statements and the keen eyes of fellow reporters on the conference call, we can highlight a few visible changes in the images released today:

Defiant-X has beefed up landing gear, having gained a nose wheel that the SB>1 Defiant lacked. (SB>1 had two large wheels forward and a small wheel on the tail – check out these close-ups). This almost certainly adds weight, but, the companies said, it will improve stability on rugged frontline landing zones.

Defiant-X gets rid of the prominent exhaust outlet that SB>1 had below its engine. That helps “reduce thermal signature,” the companies said in a statement. In other words, the new design sheds its engine heat in a different and less detectable way, making it stealthier against enemy infrared sensors and harder to target. The companies said they’re still deciding which specific engine to install. They’ll have to find the best balance of raw power, ease of maintenance, and heat.

Finally, Defiant-X has a more sharply angled nosecone and a pronounced ridge on the back half of the fuselage. Such “mold line” changes improve the aircraft’s “aerodynamic handling,” the companies said. There’s no word on whether they also improve its speed, a high priority for the Army – and an area where the SB>1 has lagged its rival, the Bell V-280 Valor...

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/01/def ... aa-design/

A strong side wind is going to blow that sucker over on its side. Remember, you heard it here first.

Tail strikes will never be a problem, I'm sure.

FWIW,

Interesting datum to consider when analyzing their claims: According to Flight Global, since its delayed first flight in March of 2019, they've only flown the SB>1 31 times with a total flight time of 26 hours.

Seems like tall helicopters will be a real bitch to maintain in the field. Neither Defiant nor V-280 impress me as sustainable.

A strong side wind is going to blow that sucker over on its side. Remember, you heard it here first.

Yep, I read about Chinock's being blown over all the time...

Ever heard of the aerodynamic design philosophy " if it looks right it usually is right?"

That thing does not look right. It looks too tall for its landing gear width.

If you are more comfortable with technical terms, it looks "tipsy."

Chinook's are wide and squat by comparison, with a wheel on each corner like a go cart.

I do not believe you when you say you hear of Chinooks blowing over all the time.

That is just "fake news."

Do not believe it.