Open letter to Sikorsky

[Dave Jackson]

Quote from ~ Flight International, Feb 8-14, 2005

"Sikorsky has decided not to bid for the US Army's Armed Reconnaissance
Helicopter and the Light Utility Helicopter programmes and is instead
looking further ahead. "With the business growing, we have the luxury to
look at what is the next big thing we do that is not 'me too'" says Pino
[senior vice-president marketing and commercial programs]. "By the end of
the year we will be better able to tell what the next breakthrough might
be.""

___________________

Dear Sikorsky,

A long sixty years after the inception of the helicopter, you appear to be
acknowledging the need for a second-generation craft. Perhaps, you will
take this opportunity to finally put rotorcraft research and development
back on the correct track; the track where it was, before being pushed off
to the side by the tail rotor.

The German Side-by-side Focke Fw 61 and the Intermeshing Flettner Fl 282
were the world's first viable rotorcraft. Both of these craft had latterly
displaced twin main-rotor configurations. Unfortunately, meaningful pursuit
of the lateral configured helicopters was never done in North America.

I humbly suggest that the preeminent second-generation large rotorcraft will
have an Interleaved configuration [http://www.unicopter.com/1121.html ],
with;
~ extremely rigid rotors,
~ active blade twist, with reverse velocity utilization,
~ low tip speed, plus large chord,
~ pusher propellers or fans,
~ no wings (no compound design).

This configuration appears to offer a number of significant advantages and
few disadvantages, when compared to the contending tilt rotor configuration.


Yours provocatively; :)

Dave Jackson

[Helowriter]

Interesting. They're right in that both the ARH and LUH are supposed
to be quickie buys of off-the-shelf aircraft. (We'll see about that.)
Without a small product in-house and ready to go, they were out of the
game.

Sikorsky has done some studies of telescoping tilt rotors -- the blades
slide out to maximum rotor disk diameter for hovering, back in for
cruise. I believe they've also looked at folding tilt rotors that
jacknife back in cruising flight. Both a long ways out, I think.

Hopefully, there is something viable in their design studies. The
X-Wing came to zilch when the government cut off the money. Trouble
is, NASA is no longer funding rotorcraft research, and the military
services still go off in separate directions.


HW

[CTR]

I wonder if the "next big thing" is a bigger push into UAVs? Sikorskys
UCAR proposal used Kamans intermeshing rotor system and claimed some
remarkable advancements in speed. Of course the Army pulled the plug
on DARPAs UCAR program, but maybe Sikorskys already interested in
intermeshing rotor concepts.

I hope you get a response from Sikorsky. But why limit your proposal
to one company? There are a lot of small companies looking for break
through technologies for advanced UAVs.

Have fun,

CTR

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Dave your obvious hatred for the tail rotor makes me believe that you have
been injured by one at one time or another. As the editor of Experimental
Helo magazine, I get exposed to alternative methods such as you suggest. No
one has demonstrated that they can be economically produced. The addition
of another complete rotor with the accompanying transmission and control
systems add both construction, maintenance costs. The primary savings
available would be in the fuel saved over the tail rotor machine. Would it
be enough? Simple issues such as tracking and balancing blades gets more
complex with the co-axial and intermeshed rotor systems. I would expect that
both of these modes of propulsion would have more modes of vibrations
excitation that would have to be dealt with. I'm having enough trouble
getting 2/rev vibrations under control with a simple two bladed, tail rotor
machine. I can't imagine the difficulties that I would encounter with the
machine that you describe. Have you built and de-bugged your design yet?
Concepts are one thing, operational ships are another. History has said
that all of the major helicopter mfrs. have visited the idea of getting rid
of the tail rotor and gave it up for a myriad of reasons. While technology
has relieved some of those reasons, the physics remain. With all that said
there is one co-axial helicopter that has been test flown that is being
prepped for the homebuilt market: The Ezycopter.
I know of no one flying the intermeshing rotors in a ship that competes
price wise with an equivalent performing tail rotor ship. It just doesn't
seem possible to make a ship with the additional main rotor system and
transmission system and control system that can compete with the standard
tail rotor ship. If I'm proved wrong, a bottle of single malt scotch
whiskey is yours.

--
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:XNO0e.778773$8l.282021@pd7tw1no...
> Quote from ~ Flight International, Feb 8-14, 2005
>
> "Sikorsky has decided not to bid for the US Army's Armed Reconnaissance
> Helicopter and the Light Utility Helicopter programmes and is instead
> looking further ahead. "With the business growing, we have the luxury to
> look at what is the next big thing we do that is not 'me too'" says Pino
> [senior vice-president marketing and commercial programs]. "By the end of
> the year we will be better able to tell what the next breakthrough might
> be.""
>
> ___________________
>
> Dear Sikorsky,
>
> A long sixty years after the inception of the helicopter, you appear to be
> acknowledging the need for a second-generation craft. Perhaps, you will
> take this opportunity to finally put rotorcraft research and development
> back on the correct track; the track where it was, before being pushed off
> to the side by the tail rotor.
>
> The German Side-by-side Focke Fw 61 and the Intermeshing Flettner Fl 282
> were the world's first viable rotorcraft. Both of these craft had latterly
> displaced twin main-rotor configurations. Unfortunately, meaningful
pursuit
> of the lateral configured helicopters was never done in North America.
>
> I humbly suggest that the preeminent second-generation large rotorcraft
will
> have an Interleaved configuration [http://www.unicopter.com/1121.html ],
> with;
> ~ extremely rigid rotors,
> ~ active blade twist, with reverse velocity utilization,
> ~ low tip speed, plus large chord,
> ~ pusher propellers or fans,
> ~ no wings (no compound design).
>
> This configuration appears to offer a number of significant advantages and
> few disadvantages, when compared to the contending tilt rotor
configuration.
>
>
> Yours provocatively; :)
>
> Dave Jackson
>
>
>

[Dave Jackson]

Hi Stu,

> "Dave your obvious hatred for the tail rotor makes me believe that you
have been injured by one at one time or another."

No. It was the rotorcraft industry that was injured when Igor got too eager
to get something off the ground. :)


> "No one has demonstrated that they [twin lateral main rotors] can be
economically produced."

Henry Ford proved the economies of large-scale production. To design and
produce a few 'Ford type' cars in a local machine shop would cost more than
a half-million dollars per car. Unfortunately, in rotorcraft there is one
civilian helicopter for every half-million people.

"If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door."


> "It just doesn't seem possible to make a ship with the additional main
rotor system and transmission system and control system that can compete
with the standard tail rotor ship."

I agree. For today's homebuilder; the price, the building, the displaying,
and the pride of flying a craft with limited stability, is the pleasure and
it is the market. The gyrocopter is epitome of this.

However, for mass acceptance, the single-rotor equivalent of the 'unicycle'
must be morphed into the twin-rotor equivalent of the lower cost 'bicycle'.

How old is the Scotch whiskey? :)

Dave
Not coincidentally

[Stuart Fields]

Dave: I just drove down hiway 395 where there were a bunch of "mass
accepted" automobiles and drivers that I wish were in drivers ed a bunch
longer. I think that if everyone of those drivers were in an intermeshing
helicopter headed toward the ski area, we would have aluminum showeres to
end all showers. If the death of the tail rotor leads to providing these
guys with a helicopter, I will vote to keep the tail rotor. BTW I don't
seem to have much trouble flying the tail rotor. I would have trouble in an
auto rotation in a ship where the controls need to be reversed.
I think 10 yr old scotch ought to do it. Even older, if we share it.
Stu
"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:S5%0e.785167$Xk.347264@pd7tw3no...
> Hi Stu,
>
> > "Dave your obvious hatred for the tail rotor makes me believe that you
> have been injured by one at one time or another."
>
> No. It was the rotorcraft industry that was injured when Igor got too
eager
> to get something off the ground. :)
>
>
> > "No one has demonstrated that they [twin lateral main rotors] can be
> economically produced."
>
> Henry Ford proved the economies of large-scale production. To design and
> produce a few 'Ford type' cars in a local machine shop would cost more
than
> a half-million dollars per car. Unfortunately, in rotorcraft there is one
> civilian helicopter for every half-million people.
>
> "If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your
door."
>
>
> > "It just doesn't seem possible to make a ship with the additional main
> rotor system and transmission system and control system that can compete
> with the standard tail rotor ship."
>
> I agree. For today's homebuilder; the price, the building, the
displaying,
> and the pride of flying a craft with limited stability, is the pleasure
and
> it is the market. The gyrocopter is epitome of this.
>
> However, for mass acceptance, the single-rotor equivalent of the
'unicycle'
> must be morphed into the twin-rotor equivalent of the lower cost
'bicycle'.
>
> How old is the Scotch whiskey? :)
>
> Dave
> Not coincidentally
>
>
>
>
>

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-03-25 02:08:39 -0500, "Dave Jackson" > said:

> A long sixty years after the inception of the helicopter, you appear to be
> acknowledging the need for a second-generation craft.

Sikorsky has built something like thirty-odd distinct types of
helicopter and experimental rotorcraft.

Sikorsky's second-generation craft was arguably the S-55 (H-19).

You claim a speed advantage for your design. When you've flown
something faster than the S-69 ABC, come back to the group and tell us
how inept they are at Sikorsky and how great you are. Otherwise, you
just sound like an empty windbag.

> The German Side-by-side Focke Fw 61 and the Intermeshing Flettner Fl 282
> were the world's first viable rotorcraft.

There was this Spanish cat named Juan de la Cierva... ever hear of him?
He's in these things called books...

> Both of these craft had latterly
> displaced twin main-rotor configurations.

And neither could match the performance of the initial Sikorsky
helicopters. Or many others. It's also worth noting that Igor Sikorsky
and Bill Hunt & Michael Buivid (his engineer & fabricator) considered,
and even flew, many, many alternatives to what is now the common
penny-farthing arrangement of main and tail rotor.

Sikorsky, Bell, Hiller, Robinson... what a bunch of losers...

> Unfortunately, meaningful pursuit
> of the lateral configured helicopters was never done in North America.

Yeah, Kaman is actually an Ethiopian concern under deep cover.

> This configuration appears to offer a number of significant advantages and
> few disadvantages, when compared to the contending tilt rotor configuration.

For one thing, it's only a paper design that doesn't have to fly...
heck of an advantage...

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Dave Jackson]

>> Excerpt from initial posting;
> > A long sixty years after the inception of the helicopter, you [Sikorsky]
> > appear to be acknowledging the need for a second-generation craft.

> Kevin O'Brian's replies;
> Sikorsky has built something like thirty-odd distinct types of
> helicopter and experimental rotorcraft.

Statement of Roger Krone, Senior Vice President Boeing Army Systems;
"The Chinook was developed in the late 1950s, less than a decade after the
B-52 bomber entered service. Since then, two follow-on bombers have been
fielded, but no new heavy-lift helicopter."

Meaningful advancements come about through revolutionary change not
evolutionary change.
Bell is perusing the tilt-rotor configuration. What's new at Sikorsky?
_______________________

> You claim a speed advantage for your design. When you've flown
> something faster than the S-69 ABC, come back to the group and
> tell us how inept they are at Sikorsky and how great you are.
> Otherwise, you just sound like an empty windbag.

Reports on the S-69 ABC [http://www.UniCopter.com/0891.html] suggest that
this craft could have flown even faster, if the lateral vibratory dysimitry
had been reduced by using 4-blade rotors. But, I'm probably 'windbagging'
you with information that you must already know.
______________________

> > The German Side-by-side Focke Fw 61 and the Intermeshing
> > Flettner Fl 282 were the world's first viable rotorcraft.
>
> There was this Spanish cat named Juan de la Cierva... ever
> hear of him? He's in these things called books...

You're right, I'm wrong. The word 'rotorcraft' should have read
'helicopters'.
______________________

> > Both of these craft [Focke Fw 61 and the Flettner Fl 282]
> > had latterly displaced twin main-rotor configurations.

> And neither could match the performance of the initial
> Sikorsky helicopters.

Interesting comment, particularly when one considers that they both were
built before the Sikorsky R-4B. In actual fact, the Flettner surpassed the
Sikorsky in most performance categories - including maximum forward speed .
But again, I'm probably 'windbagging' you with information that you already
know.
______________

> > Unfortunately, meaningful pursuit of the lateral
> > configured helicopters was never done in North America.

> Yeah, Kaman is actually an Ethiopian concern under deep cover.

The phrase used was, 'meaningful persuit'.

Charles Kaman left United Technologies with only a few thousand dollars in
his bank account, after being told that they did not need two Chief
Engineers. It appears that he took the intermeshing helicopter into a niche
market because he could not compete head-to-head with his large former
employer.

Kellett was on the right track, when he tried to raise one million dollars
to develop a rigid 3-blade intermeshing rotor. Unfortunately, the death of
his test pilot appears to have been the demise of Kellett's aspirations.
_____________

> Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

Rule #2: 'Biggest' ain't necessarily 'Best'


cheers

Dave

[Jim Carriere]

Dave Jackson wrote:
>>>Excerpt from initial posting;
>>>A long sixty years after the inception of the helicopter, you [Sikorsky]
>>>appear to be acknowledging the need for a second-generation craft.
>
>
>> Kevin O'Brian's replies;
>>Sikorsky has built something like thirty-odd distinct types of
>>helicopter and experimental rotorcraft.
>
>
> Statement of Roger Krone, Senior Vice President Boeing Army Systems;
> "The Chinook was developed in the late 1950s, less than a decade after the
> B-52 bomber entered service. Since then, two follow-on bombers have been
> fielded, but no new heavy-lift helicopter."

Dave, I believe you many of your arguments have sound technical
merit, but comparing heavy lift helicopter development to US bombers
is not quite fair. Logistics helicopter to bomber development, or
heavy-lift helicopter to heavy bomber, yes.

I would disagree that the B-52 has had two successful follow-ons for
heavy bombers, I would say just one: the B-1, which is a succussful
heavy bomber. The B-2 is too revolutionary, specialized, expensive
and produced in too few numbers- it is an apples to oranges
comparison. It is a successful weapons system because warfare has
changed- accurate munitions instead of carpet bombing. Meanwhile the
B-52 continues to be successful at the heavy bomber mission.

Similarly, the Chinook is still successful, and so is the H-53. The
Boeing guy didn't mention the 53, even if admittedly he did state
"new" heavy-lift helicopter.

But there you have two and only two major types of aircraft that are
still successful in each mission (heavy bomber and heavy lift helo).

If you want to compare bombers, include the B-2 but also the B-58 and
B-70, A-5, A-6, F-111, but on the helicopter side also include H-46,
H-1, H-3, H-53, H-60, S-92, and now the rotary wing side doesn't look
quite so stagnant. Revolutionary no, evolutionary yes.

Food for thought anyway, I thought all of your remarks were interesting.

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-03-31 17:09:37 -0500, "Dave Jackson" > said:

One shouldn't feed the trolls, but...

> "The Chinook was developed in the late 1950s, less than a decade after the
> B-52 bomber entered service. Since then, two follow-on bombers have been
> fielded, but no new heavy-lift helicopter."

In the first place, he was mistaken. Two other, later developed, US
military heavy-lift helicopters include the CH-53 used by the naval and
air forces, and the S-64/CH-54 Tarhe. The Tarhe was retired from
military use when continued improvement in the Chinook allowed the
military to standardise on a single airframe.

By the way, Erickson has resurrected the S-64 after acquiring the TC
from Sikorsky and has four new airframes under construction.

Then there's the KMAX but you seem to have some problem recognizing
that the people that built that machine were serious.

When the US cannot lift something with a Hook these days, they hire an
Mi-26 like everybody else. Certainly the Mi-6, -10, and -26 qualify as
heavy lift helicopters. All of which use rotorheads and controls that
would be terribly familiar to anyone familiar with pre-Black Hawk
Sikorsky practice.

> Meaningful advancements come about through revolutionary change not
> evolutionary change.

Empty platitude. You are not allowed to spew empty platitudes until you
actually become a legend, which would require you to do something, not
just snipe at those who are.

> Bell is perusing the tilt-rotor configuration. What's new at Sikorsky?

I think you mean "pursuing?" Well, let's see, at Sikorsky:

1. Continued sales and improvementg of the S-70.

2. Two new versions of the S-76, including a new purpose-built P&W
motor for the S-76D.

3. Adapting the aerodynamic lessons learnt from the Comanche program to
enhance the performance downline.

4. Integrating the Schweizer operation, which gives Sikorsky:
a. a very successful training helicopter
b. a leading VTOL UAV program
c. "Hawk Works" -- a rapid prototyping shop that can't be done in
the management/labor environment of the big winged S, but can be done
in the boonies at Horseheads.

5. An uphill fight to sell the S-92 into US military contracts written
specificially for the EH101 for political reasons.


I said:

>> When you've flown
>> something faster than the S-69 ABC, come back to the group and
>> tell us how inept they are at Sikorsky and how great you are.

And you said:

>> Reports on the S-69 ABC [http://www.UniCopter.com/0891.html] suggest that
> this craft could have flown even faster,

Like which of your aircraft Dave? Oh, haven't actually designed, or
built, or flown anything, have you? Accomplishment first, boasting
later, if you please.


> In actual fact, the Flettner surpassed the
> Sikorsky in most performance categories - including maximum forward speed .

Has it ever occured to you that maximum forward speed is not what
actual helicopter (or airplane) buyers want? You could point out that a
TBM700 for instance, goes twice as fast and almost three times as high
as a Cessna Caravan, with a very similar powerplant. So why do buyers
buy nine Caravans for every TBM?

A Corvette goes much faster than a Ford pickup truck. Nonetheless, many
ignorant buyers, some of whom even already own a Corvette, buy Ford
trucks every year.

>> The phrase used was, 'meaningful persuit'.

I don't think operating a company that has had a good run for decades
and which shipped thousands of helicopters is exactly meaningless --
especially when compared to the record of aircraft built and shipped
that you are standing on when you slur these people.

> It appears that he took the intermeshing helicopter into a niche
> market because he could not compete head-to-head with his large former
> employer.

So very queer that the market he wound up in -- shipboard operations --
was the same one that the Russian counterpart wound up in. Could it be
that the complex intermeshing or coax systems are worth tolerating when
compactness is of overwhelming importance. Once you could fold up a
"real" helicopter, the jig was up for these types.

Kaman's in trouble now not because of their own programs, but because
MD Helicopters stiffed them on paying for airframes that they built for
that firm (formerly part of Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Hughes, and
now back in the Boeing camp again, at least as long as they are still
in running for the two Army contracts). When you actually build real
stuff you have to then face the challenge of getting real people to pay
real money for it.

As far as the impossibility of competing with former employers, how do
you explain Frank Robinson? He also worked for a large helicopter
company (a few of them in fact). And last year about 700 civil
helicopters shipped from US plants, and over 600 of them came from his.
Yep, you just can't compete with that big established cartel. One
reason Frank pushes people so hard and is such a bear to work for, is
that he KNOWS that it can be done and that for all the people looking
at a drawing board and saying, "no way, you can't compete with Robinson
in the piston market," there just might be one who knows that it can be
done, too.

The only way you make a sale is by having what the customer wants --
and in the helicopter world, we are talking about goods so expensive
that it is usually a matter of need, a dispassionate choice of a
business tool.

> Kellett was on the right track, when he tried to raise one million dollars

The story of vertical flight is of necessity a story of many dead ends.
Imaging conspiracies with which The Man kept the brotherhood down is
not going to get anything accomplished.

If you want to revolutionize the industry you could do what Kaman and
Robinson and even Burt Rutan did -- get a basic engineering education,
start at entry level in the industry and proceed to jobs of increasing
responsibility. But you don't get to start as Chief Engineer and CEO,
unless you want your ideas to die stillborn on your drawing board.

I suppose that actually trying to build something, and seeing how
damned hard it is, would threaten your self-image as a genius whose
brilliance has condemned him to obscurity. No, your lack of actual
output has condemned you to obscurity. And it's just that damned simple.

Even Kellett is in the books, and for what he flew more than for what
he didn't.

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Dave Jackson]

Kevin O'Brien,

Your attack on the technical aspects of rotorcraft concepts is much
appreciated. A lesser person would have attacked the individual.

Dave J.

[CTR]

Dave,

I hold five patents and have three pending in the field of flight
controls for helicopters and tiltrotors. But I have to give a lot of
credit for these patents to the very smart and experienced engineering
*******s that told me my ideas would never work (they did word it as
nicely however). In most cases their negativity was based on previous
failed attemps they had not experienced directly but had read about.
Further investigation, spurred on by the urge to prove them wrong often
proved them to be correct, but only for a limited set of constraints.
I was able to learn a lot from others failures and was able to take
advantage of technology advancements that we not available at the time
to make my ideas practical.

Don't let the nay sayers get you down. Learn what you can from them
and let them spur you on to try to prove them wrong.

Good luck,

CTR

[Kevin O'Brien]

Dave,

Just wanted to say that I have visited your site for the first time in
several years and I did want to express admiration for the amount of
work that you have put in and the amount of research that you have
gathered and placed online. There seem to be some papers on the
Flettner there? If my hasty assessment is correct, I look forward to
reading them. I don't know enough about the Flettner (or the Doblhoff
either).

I see many conclusions with which I disagree, and even some stated
facts that strike me as mistaken, but it has been a prodigious effort
on your part and deserves a salute on that basis.

An example of the thing that gets to me... Hiller couldn't compete
effectively? He beat some of the big guys. He sold a great number of
H-23s to the US military after beating competition including Bell for
the contracts, over a period of 15+ years. I bet the sales guys from
Bell and Hughes felt pretty lousy when those contracts were awarded. On
top of that, Hiller sold several hundred civilian 360s. Plus a couple
hundred 1100s. (The H-23 is a great machine, and still well supported,
unlike its contemporary the Bell 47).

Incidentally, Stanley Hiller started with coaxials (I know, not the
same thing as intermeshing rotors at all). But it's interesting that a
guy who pioneered that design abandoned it and went to his own version
of the penny-farthing design. Do you know why? (I'm not being
facetious, I don't know and thought you might).

I would suggest that building and selling rotorcraft is a business, and
that designs and companies succeed and fail more frequently for
business that technical reasons, IMHO. The Beta/VHS or Mac/PC model, as
it were.

--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.