Sikorsky Raider Helicopter Hits 200 Knots

Submitted by: melcervini 3 weeks ago in Tech
A new style of helicopter may soon make traditional tail-rotor helos obsolete.

There are 77 comments:
Male 891
After reading the comments here, I have come to the conclusion that not all progress is good.  For example, there was a time when monks were expected to take a vow of silence - Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.  
0
Reply
Male 271
Generally I don't like to post argumentative comments but here is one.
This is not the first counter-rotating coaxial rotors. For example Kamov Ka-50 was designed and produced in 80s and 90s.
Nor is it the first one to add a pusher propelle to a helicopter. In the 60s and 70s Lockheed made the AH-56 Cheyenne to compete with the AH-1 Cobra.
And it is not the fastest one in any measure. That honor goes to Westland Lynx with 400.87 km/h (249.09 mph). Not to mention the speeds of compound helicopters.
Ka-52:

AH-56:

Westland Lynx:

Compund helicopter (Eurocopter X3):

PS. Nice post.
2
Reply
Male 2,868

And to think this was the cat's ass when I used to fly them. Then these came around after I got out and all I got out of the deal was a stiffie.

2
Reply
Male 5,713
Quite an amazing piece of technology happening here.  It is utilizing some important innovations to propel bladed engine thrust into a new direction.  You want flying cars?  You continue to develop this technology and hybrid it with drone concepts to create a four propellered vehicle that can carry 400 lbs, run on a universal virtual rail system and is as quiet as your redneck neighbor's V8 truck.  Did you hear that "quiet" mode?  That is impressive and a result of the dual propellers.  Noise is the main factor in "the flying car" concept.  Drone design combined with the dual propellers is the way to go.
2
Reply
Male 13,429
propellers? meh boring. way too slow advancement in flight technology.

If human greed and the love for money wasn't such a huge issue and we loved one another like God asked, we would be far more advanced than we are now, since there would be no friction to get new discoveries to the world, and we could be flying in deloreans that fly with a new type of engine not yet seen to the age that is in love with money and rejecting God.
0
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior Necessity is the mother of invention.  The fastest cycles of invention occurred during military development, out of necessity.

Human greed is also a strong motivator for invention, due to the application of necessity for greater profits.

Peace and love do not for fast development make.

If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.
2
Reply
Male 13,429
punko You sound like a person who doesn't know much about how effective peace and live is, with statements like that.
-1
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior Or someone who knows a thing or two about process and product development and has lived long enough to see the cycles of conflict and how they play out.
2
Reply
Male 13,429
punko Or someone who just doesn't know about how effect peace and love can be, and turns a blind eye to it.
0
Reply
Female 6,716
monkwarrior Peace and love sure worked for that Missionary near India, didn't it.
2
Reply
Male 13,429
melcervini were the people on the island peaceful and loving?  Do you even know how to rationalize?
-1
Reply
Male 3,118
monkwarrior 
"You sound like a person who doesn't know much..."

"Do you even know how to rationalize?"

"sheesh, miss the point much?"

"maybe if you're high on drugs."

"...keep going on like a whiner"

Remember, peace and love are the way. I want a flying delorean too.
1
Reply
Male 13,429
jaysingrimm Good advice, you should remember that yourself so you don't act like a hypocrite as you just did.  And yes, a flying car would be nice.
0
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior they defended their sovereignty.  Sorry, he should not have been there.  He was in the wrong
0
Reply
Male 13,429
0
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior Can't see the image. Sorry.
0
Reply
Male 13,429
punko 

 the point > .        --------->   <you
0
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior Nope.  Can't see the connection.  the lad was 100% in the wrong.
0
Reply
Male 13,429
punko its ok
0
Reply
Male 10,144
monkwarrior If human greed and the love for money wasn't such a huge issue and we loved one another like God asked, we would be far more advanced than we are now

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. If turnips were bayonets, I'd wear one by my side. If "if's" and "and's" were pots and pans, There'd be no work for tinkers' hands.

IOW...you have to deal with the reality you are dealt, 
5
Reply
Male 5,713
1
Reply
Male 13,429
megrendel Still, propellers?  We need a new technology, that stuff is over 125 years old now.  It's like using windows 98 in 2100
0
Reply
Male 10,144
monkwarrior Still, propellers?   

Aka: "Proven Technology."  KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid.

monkwarrior We need a new technology, that stuff is over 125 years old now. 

One of the most effective bits of technology is over 3 million years old.  We've redesigned the head with modern metals and the handle with polymers and plastics...but it's still basically a rock tied to a stick.
4
Reply
Male 13,429
megrendel sheesh, miss the point much?  Im kind of amazed you missed the point that we need a new technology for flight and keep going on like a whiner.
0
Reply
Male 10,144
monkwarrior I didn't miss the point at all.

You inferred that any technology that was 125 years old or older is obsolete.  I proved it was an ignorant attitude.

And you don't think scientists and engineers worldwide aren't spending millions of dollars looking for the new technology?  Care to contemplate WHY they haven't done so yet? (and now, it's not a conspiracy)

The reason it's still in use is because it's a VIABLE technology.
0
Reply
Male 13,429
0
Reply
Male 10,144
monkwarrior So you were not dismissing the technology because it's old?  Obviously you were.
1
Reply
Male 13,429
megrendel You were missing the point that "meh, propellers? boring"  "we need something new".  You're the one trying to take it into some some type of derp vortex.
0
Reply
Male 1,468
monkwarrior The Wheel? - obsolete! 
3
Reply
Male 5,713
boredhuman This wins comment of the day for me :)
2
Reply
Male 13,429
kalron maybe if you're high on drugs.
-1
Reply
Male 13,429
boredhuman The wheel is a staple, but we're not using stone wheels on vehicles these days.  While the propeller no doubt has also made advancements, my quip is that we are still using them, or variants of them, as the primary means of propulsion.  It's like research in that area has stagnated like the entertainment industry of the west has.
0
Reply
Male 10,144
monkwarrior Currently it is not feasible to fly without wings.

The rotor on top of a helicopter is not a propeller, it is a rotary wing. 

The propeller on the back is.  It's fairly simple to take power from the existing engine that propels the rotors and run the prop with it. 

Any other type of propulsion would require an additional power plant.

0
Reply
Male 13,429
megrendel That's what we need to work on solving.  
0
Reply
Male 2,868
megrendel Funny you say that. When I when through flight school for helicopters it was called rotary wing aircraft, 1975. Ft Rucker Alabama.
0
Reply
Male 2,366
scheckydamon Mother Rucker!  A magical place.  I was there in August 1987.  Quite balmy.... 
0
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior I guess gas turbine engines don't count,  Or scram engines or ram jects. or the half dozen or so different types of rocket engines - including ion propulsion.

No doubt you've also looked at the ionic wind model plane that was recently demonstrated that showed a method of generating thrust for a lightweight aircraft without any moving parts.
0
Reply
Male 5,713
punko Stop trying to use facts against the monk ;)
0
Reply
Male 13,429
kalron I'm quite able to deal with facts thank you very much.  The level of intellect on I-A-B leaves much to be desired though. (too much drugs?)
-1
Reply
Male 10,144
monkwarrior The level of intellect on I-A-B leaves much to be desired though.

And yet, if you left the average intellect level would be much higher....
1
Reply
Male 13,429
megrendel Actually, it would be much lower.
0
Reply
Male 10,144
monkwarrior Ah, monkwarrior kneejerk response #4.  The old 

2
Reply
Male 13,429
megrendel oh look, you're whining again.
-1
Reply
Male 10,144
monkwarrior You misspelled 'winning'.
1
Reply
Male 13,429
megrendel because it wasn't winning, but whining.
0
Reply
Male 9,505
megrendel LOL! Quick, someone call in the Burn Unit!
0
Reply
Male 13,429
punko jets are just propellers  Wasteful.
0
Reply
Male 10,144
monkwarrior jets are just propellers  Wasteful.

It's just adorable when you try to argue science stuff.

In a Prop-driven plane, the propeller is attached to the engine.  It uses a engine to rotate the propeller to create thrust. This engine is the old ICE...Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow....  It uses pistons for the squeeze part. 

A Jet engine also uses the Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow method...but in this case the vanes are what does the Squeeze part. The Blow is what propels the aircraft. 

A propeller to a jet engine is what a hammer is to a AK-47.
1
Reply
Male 2,868
megrendel  .Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow Reminds me of an old girlfriend or two.
1
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior WTF!  you know nothing about jet engines if you think they are 'just propellers'.  the vanes in a turbine exist simply to increase compression of the oxygen to increase the force from the burning fuel. Several forms of jet engines do not even use vanes as the speed of the aircraft is sufficient to compress the air.

A propeller rotates at right angles to the direct of force utilizing airflow around the propeller blade to generate thrust due to pressure differentials caused by the differing air speeds over the two surfaces of the blade.

As for being wasteful, propellers utilize the same method of generating thrust as bird wings.  Nature has spent several million years optimizing the airfoil shape.  Man has adapted that shape and combined it with the axle - a simple machine that nature does not use.
2
Reply
Male 9,505
punko Yeah, God needs to get on the bird propulsion thing. Wings have been used for at least 6,000 years (according to my fundamentalist websites). Talk about stagnant technology.
0
Reply
Male 13,429
punko So thanks for admitting they just an advanced propeller, here's a demo for the IAB gang:
0
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior No. the "jet' part of the engine is the bit at the back, the vanes direct air to be combusted.  they are not a propeller producing thrust.  Other methods for compressing the oxygen have been used, including compressed air and liquid oxygen.

The vanes for turbines take an already effective technology and use it in an aspect of the jet engine, but not as a propeller.
1
Reply
Male 13,429
punko But look at the front part of the 'jet' and you'll see a propeller like device. Thanks for understanding
0
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior a propeller-like device is not the same as a propeller.  Language is a wonderful thing - its amazing how we have specific terms for specific things.  The compressor vanes on a turbine are NOT a propeller.
1
Reply
Male 13,429
punko  But it's still a propeller like device. Thanks for understanding 
0
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior I'm very glad you agree that a propeller-like device is not a propeller.

I'm also sure you will agree that the jet engines that do not use compressor vanes (the scram jet and the ram jet) lack both a propeller and other propeller-like devices.  Thus are jet engines that in no way shape, form, or function are modifications, alterations, or advancements on, a propeller.
0
Reply
Male 13,429
punko  Thanks for understanding  
0
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior The real fun thing here, Monk, is that the classic response to anyone not understanding this entire discussion regarding propellers and jets is :


"WOOOSH!"
0
Reply
Male 13,429
punko i can't believe you're still going on with this after days.  time to get a life
0
Reply
Male 1,886
monkwarrior Helping people understand is my life.  I also note that you are still going on with this.  It just shows my work here is not yet done.
0
Reply
Male 1,886
punko Saing that the jet engine is just and advanced propeller, it like saying a handgun is just an advanced stick.
0
Reply
Male 1,468
monkwarrior "[propeller] as the primary means of propulsion"
No, the internal combustion engine in cars is the primary means of propulsion... and the wheel remains a critical component.

"It's like research in that area has stagnated like the entertainment industry of the west has." 
The peak of entertainment industry was NASA's moon landings, right? All went down hill from that extraordinary achievement of fooling the world!
0
Reply
Male 1,886
boredhuman to be fair, engine generates the energy that the wheel converts to force to propel the car forward.  A car with the engine not connected to the wheels (or propeller) doesn't move. The wheel is still the means of propulsion.
0
Reply
Male 1,468
punko
"2. Propulsion. is the study of how to design an engine that will provide the thrust that is needed for a plane to take off and fly through the air. The engine provides the power for the airplane. The study of propulsion is what leads the the engineers determine the right kind of engine and the right amount of power that a plane will need" - NASA Student Site

NASA talks about the engine only, hiding the TRUTH of propulsion! LIES! :P
 
Point taken - both engine and wheels are part of the propulsion system. Monk was not wrong when he said propeller is a means of propulsion. I disagreed that he implied propeller is more common means of propulsion than wheels.

Monk wins once again - I have been proven a fool once more :(
0
Reply
Male 13,429
boredhuman I'm for change, and against lies, and also against stagnation.
0
Reply
Male 1,468
"I'm for change, and against lies, and also against stagnation."
- Excuse Me Sir, Do You Have a Moment to Talk About Jesus Christ?
0
Reply
Male 13,429
boredhuman shows us what you don't know.  Thanks
0
Reply
Male 1,468
monkwarrior
"While the propeller Christianity no doubt has also made advancements, my quip is that we are still using them it, or variants of them it, as the primary means of propulsion morality." 
You're welcome. 
0
Reply
Male 13,429
boredhuman you're free to your opinion, just as mine is atheist morality is subjective and a horrible alternative.
0
Reply
Male 9,505
I figure hospitals will be switching to these kinds of helicopters for their LifeStar services as soon as they can. The greater speed means you can get out to accident scenes and bring the patients back to the ER much faster, which is going to save lives.
1
Reply
Male 5,713
squrlz4ever I will be optimistic and agree with you here oh furry one.  It's a pretty damn innovative design.
0
Reply
Male 543
squrlz4ever I think you will see these things deployed in military operations not medical transports. It was designed to replace a couple of military choppers that was developed in the 60'ies.

It would be scary good as a scout and anti veichle weapons platform.

But yes, it would be cool to see them as high speed medical transports, and the ability to run silent means they can be used in the urban areas around hospitals without too much disturbance.
2
Reply
Male 1,468
wolladude "It would be scary good as a scout and anti veichle weapons platform"
This reminds me of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle Evolution from Pentagon Wars. Just wait till the military get their hands on it! 
0
Reply
Male 9,505
wolladude I think you're right. After my comment, I did a bit of research and found that most medical helicopters stay within a 100-mile radius of the hospital and usually fly much shorter distances than that. So the time-savings would be significant, but by no means huge.

On one of those 100-mile missions (200 miles roundtrip), one of these new helicopters would probably save 10 minutes each way or 20 minutes total. For the majority of trips, the time savings would be more like 5 minutes each way.

(Speed of average helicopter: 160 MPH. Speed of the Raider in this video: 230 MPH.)

Bottom line: The biggest advantages of this type of helicopter will be for uses where you're often flying long distances. Medical helos, by contrast, are usually making fairly short trips.
0
Reply
Male 45,690
kewel
0
Reply
Male 5,713
1
Reply