Comments by "Tara Raboomdiay" (@tararaboomdiay7442) on "Dark Skies" channel.

  1. The Cheyenne did not use an X-Wing and it never reached its promised speed. In fact, the world speed record has been held since 1986 by a British conventional helicopter.
    2
  2. At the time the decision was made I'm not sure the OV-10 had flown. Certainly there was far more flight time on the Charger. The most likely explanation is that the OV-10 used the "home team" engine, while Charger used another, fr more successful, engine the was "Not Invented Here".
    2
  3. It would have a different fuselage.
    2
  4. No relation to Osprey, and since X-Wing never flew (that's not an X-Wing on the in flight shots), not surprising it would be safer!
    1
  5.  @BlueTrane2028  It absolutely can be trusted (in this case).
    1
  6. Unlike an autogyro, for higher speeds the rotor is stopped.
    1
  7. X-Wing was blades as wings. S-72 had wings because it was supposed to test mutiple rotors.
    1
  8.  @lokisgodhi  You do realize that 12 incidents and 42 fatalities over 26 years, especially in an aircraft that carries 26-28 people is a pretty good record for a military aircraft, don't you?
    1
  9.  @almorris171  The F-14 got that %#**!!! engine to save money. Surprisingly, though, the much more powerful and better F110 they finally got used less fuel on a mission.
    1
  10. It's very hard to do ejection seats for helicopters, Kamov is the only one who thought it was worth the effort for production. For helicopters, first they'd have to blow off the rotors. OTOH, it's easy to do on a Tilt-Rotor since the blades never go over the fuselage.
    1
  11.  @timgosling3076  How could it tip the balance when the Navy awarded the contract before either of them had flown?
    1
  12. Actually, although there were many hinky things about that contract before and since, it was the other way around. USAF said it wanted one thing and told the competitors how it was going to evaluate, then decided it wanted another and without re-soliciting with the new criteria simply changed the way they evaluated the bids so the plane they now wanted would win. That's why the award collapsed The reason it can't refuel the A-10 is because USAF specified that the receiver aircraft would push onto the boom with a certain amount of force to start fuel flow. Unfortunately, the Air Force has left the A-10 so under-powered, that when loaded at altitude it doesn't have enough power to push onto the boom with that force. Air Force has acknowledged that the problem is their fault, and is paying to correct that particular deficiency.
    1
  13. Mohawk was for a different mission and couldn't have performed what this one was designed for.
    1
  14. There has never been a supersonic helicopter
    1
  15.  @arbysandtehchief5494  Complexity and cost killed it.
    1
  16.  @carlosandleon  The only problem so far is that they repeatedly just don't seem to do what is promised. Oh and the control system of that X@ technology you're referring to is more complex than that of Tilt-Rotor.
    1
  17.  @fredygump5578  The wings on the S-72 are there so that it can be flown if the rotor is stopped or not present. Remember that S-72 was an aircraft whose sole mission was to test rotors. An X-Wing would not have wings, because the whole point is for the rotor blades to be the "wing" when rotation is stopped. And no, an X-Wing can't autorotate because if you lose the power source that blows air over the blades, you lose all the lift.
    1
  18. Actually Convair's propeller driven planes were all pistons. Later some were converted to turboprops by various companies.
    1
  19. Quite impressive! The control system needed for X-Wing, though, was far more complex than what is needed for the F-35B. Just take a look at how the blowing over the blades would have worked.
    1
  20.  @ronaldschoolcraft8654  Yes it did. But it wouldn't have mattered how well it worked, that wasn't the flaw in the concept. It was what was involved in the blowing over the blades and lift generation. As a thought experiment, consider what would be going on drying transition either way.
    1
  21. That was supposed to be "DURING" transition! Curse you spell check!
    1
  22. Oh, and I left out, consider the implications to the process if the blades got dirty.
    1
  23. This is a bit misleading. The S-72 was an aircraft intended to be used to test various types of rotor blades . One of the concepts it was supposed to test was the X-wing. The videos you see here are of he S-72 flying with a conventional rotor. Although an X-wing was mounted on the S-72, it NEVER flew with it. In fact, the only time an X-wing ever flew was on an earlier testbed and it was tethered at the time. X-wing never made a transition to or from stopped rotor flight. Work on the X-wing concept was dropped when it became apparent that it would require a hideously complex control system ("...an order of magnitude more complex than the Space Shuttle...", according to some sources). Transition might not be possible in level flight. It was counting on using an engine that hadn't yet been invented. Although it would have a somewhat faster dash speed, it's expected cruise speed would actually be lower than that of a Tilt-Rotor. Basically what you'd get (even with today's technology) would be nowhere near worth what it could require to get it. The S-72 itself was grounded not that long after that because it was found there just wasn't that much demand for a dedicated rotor test aircraft to test multiple different rotors. It was simpler and easier to just test the new rotor on a regular helicopter of the desired size.
    1
  24. I saw it at NASA Ames a number of times during the '80s. I believe it is now resident at the Moffett Field Museum.
    1
  25. The concepts involve blowing the rotors off before teh seats eject, making it a slower process than on a conventional aircraft. Teh exception is Tilt-Rotor since the rotors never go over the fuselage or cockpit, so regualr ejection seats can be used without modificatipon.
    1
  26.  @shadowopsairman1583  Yeah, that'll work real well with a helo flying, say 100 feet off the ground.
    1
  27. X-Wing technology is Far more complex than Tilt-Rotor
    1
  28.  @ernestjorda2777  In an X-Wing, the pitch of the blades is never altered. The amount of lift is controlled by how much air is flowing from the slots in the blade.
    1
  29.  @Danger_mouse  The blades aren't flipped. The air coming out of the slots has to be re routed to blow over the aft edge.
    1
  30. The trubofans were to provide propulsion during testing of various rotors and also for use when no rotor was fitted.
    1
  31.  @scoldeddogproduction  There were two built. The second is at Moffett Field in California
    1
  32. Both Charger and Bronco were high wing. While Convair put the canopy above the wing, the the fuselage hung from the wing, which is what defines high wing. Also, if the two are compared, the Charger can be seen as the one with the bubble canopy.
    1
  33.  @rayceeya8659  If you have sufficient runway at both ends when and where you need it, no VTOL makes sense. And of course you have to hope your C-130 and Black Hawk can get together simultaneously where and when you need them.
    1
  34. The S-72 test aircraft used the same engines as th S-3.
    1
  35.  @redlindholm8451  no relation
    1
  36. Both the charger and OV-10 had ejection seats. Because of its configuration, you could also climb out of the Charger and bail out like they did in WWII. this was not possible in the OV-10.
    1
  37. The X-wing concept was that teh rotor wold be stopped and would act like a wing via air being ducted through the blades. Operational X-Wings would not use conventional wings, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the concept.
    1