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.