SB 1 Defiant Helicopter
- Thread starter Retired W4
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
A flying Veg-O-Matic.
Looks "complicated." 
What could possibly go wrong?
Promo video: #SB1DEFIANT Flight Test Highlights - YouTube
OP
Fly-by-wire, which would make me a little nervous after the Russians figured out how to interfere with the stabilator computer on the UH-60. The entire fleet was grounded until Sikorsky shielded the critical components. Several Blackhawks were destroyed in Granada, not by interference but by a stupid "quick fix". I'm sure our adversaries are still looking at how to bring us down with microwave bombardment.
BTW, the prop on the Defiant is reversible for deceleration which also keeps the pitch attitude down during landing. If the pusher prop is shot out, a clutch can disengage it (continue mission). As always, with highly automated flight controls, when thing go bad you better know how to aviate.
BTW, the prop on the Defiant is reversible for deceleration which also keeps the pitch attitude down during landing. If the pusher prop is shot out, a clutch can disengage it (continue mission). As always, with highly automated flight controls, when thing go bad you better know how to aviate.
OP
This is who flys the SB1. Former Army aviators. Airwolf was a crappy old Bell 222 in real life.
DEFIANT pilots talk Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft - Boeing
DEFIANT pilots talk Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft - Boeing
vonn
US Veteran
They will be better than humping but look pretty complicated
Let's see. 280 MPH. Can hover on one engine. No tail rotor to fail. Toss some guns on there and who needs an Osprey?
fiasconva
US Veteran
Looks like that sucker would require a ton of maintenance before and after.
Last program I worked with Lockheed, Sikorsky, and Boeing was the RAH-66 Comanche. That ended well.
Anyone who cannot act.
OP
Yea, if they only could have kept the rotor blades from encroaching on the cockpit.
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Messages
- 2,297
- Reaction score
- 2,483
With twice the rotor surface area, does this make it more susceptible to small-arms fire damage/failure?
Can it still auto-rotate down, as with a 'normal' design?
Can it still auto-rotate down, as with a 'normal' design?
da Vinci's patent must have expired.
Guessing this is the outcome of the old X2 program?
If I ever get back into flying RC helis, I might have to try to build a co-axial rotor.
If I ever get back into flying RC helis, I might have to try to build a co-axial rotor.
LVSteve
Member
Are you sure that was the Comanche? Some Googling revealed nothing of that sort with that type. Now, the Chinook however...
LVSteve
Member
Largely sacrificed to buy other things. It was the day the Pentagon finally admitted that money was finite. I'm sure there are project managers from that era still in heavy analysis after that revelation.
I also thought the Comanche was cut strictly due to costs, and the changing battlefield, as it was conceived during the Cold War as a tank killer for a SAM infested environment.
OP
Are you sure that was the Comanche? Some Googling revealed nothing of that sort with that type. Now, the Chinook however...
AH-56 Cheyanne. My apologies on that one. I just remembered.
Worked with the prototypes, never saw that happen.
Minor glitch...
In an indirect way. Lots of money spend for two basic flying airframes. The futuristic systems it was supposed to have weren't even developed yet. They were just in the process of fitting the nose unit (gun/sensors) when the axe fell. Add to that some attitudes of the workers...
More blades than a Swiss Army Knife.
Benchrest1
Member
I would take that over the Osprey in a heartbeat.
Similar threads
