Don't understand the "can't they be original" response to these Chinese compound rotorcraft concepts. How many decades did we see tilt rotor and tilt wing models and drawings before the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey became operational? Were all these concepts original? How many decades have we seen compound rotorcraft concepts? Were they all original? It's not a contest judged on originality. The point is to create faster rotorcraft.
-- Edited by Triton on Tuesday 13th of November 2012 04:46:07 AM
It's one thing to undergo design studies inspired by other peoples' and countries ideas, but another to completely rip them off. In any event, claiming something as "unoriginal" is far too strong of an accusation, even with China. Let's face it... nothing in the aviation industry is "original".
__________________
Dear Princess Celestia,
Today I learned that nopony kicks ass without tanker gas. Nopony!
Why two turboprops instead of a single pusher-prop? If not simply copying the two other designs, what advantage does this configuration have on a coaxial-rotor helicopter?
-- Edited by Leela25 on Friday 3rd of April 2020 02:25:04 PM
Folks, this is silly, if you look at old patents, then you realize that every single one of them is not original, ideas are quiet old, only today's technology and materials made this possible. Regarding two turboprops on coaxial, I made Sikorsky Raider in X-plane 9 without stabilizing systems, in cruise speed rolling moment was HUGE, that ABC worked good only in hover and slow speeds, maybe in real life it is different.
The rapid advance of helicopter avionics system technology has underpinned the development of rotorcraft operations, and the helicopter avionic systems installed in future helicopters will play a vital role in meeting increasingly demanding operational needs.
The rapid advance of helicopter avionics system technology has underpinned the development of rotorcraft operations, and the helicopter avionic systems installed in future helicopters will play a vital role in meeting increasingly demanding operational needs.
Did you lift that directly out of a Sikorsky product brochure?
Guys this thread's tone is extremely offensive and naive, bordering on racist. Aren't there strct rules against this sort of thing? How has this thread been allowed intact for so long without moderation?
Guys this thread's tone is extremely offensive and naive, bordering on racist. Aren't there strct rules against this sort of thing? How has this thread been allowed intact for so long without moderation?
Wow I'm gonna agree... somehow we overlooked these other responses. I deleted some posts and edited others that were a bit more constructive. My attempt at humour in reply to Stingray was not an open invitation to put down Chinese aviation development!! Had me or Stingy caught this behavior when it happened we would've taken appropriate action as this potentially bannable! This will serve as a warning to newer members (most of the users in this thread no longer come here i think)
__________________
Airplanes are beautiful dreams. Engineers turn dreams into reality.
Thanks, Leela. Sometimes it's hard for me to check every topic. I didn't get to see the comments in question, but I trust your judgment. Negativity towards certain designs themselves I can understand, but mocking them in reference to their place of origin is going a little too far.
__________________
lllllAs of 2019 I have transitioned; My name is now Rei. Please don't deadname or misgender me, thank you. <3 lllll
Had no idea the X3 was submitted for the JMR program, but how would passengers exit from the rear since there is no rear access on the Dauphine airframe? Were they going to modify it or redesign it for that purpose, and if so how?
The X3 was just a technology demonstrator, yes they most likely would've redesigned it for troop-carrying.
After some reading further into it it looks like the X4 would have most likely fit in better with JMR, but I think the focus from the compound research was shifted after Eurocopter became Airbus.
Not really X3 was withdrawn in 2012 (or 2013 i forgot) for cost. X4 was abandoned in combination of cost and because the tail design lacked directional stability so they decided to pursue a conventional Dauphin successor instead (H160).
__________________
Airplanes are beautiful dreams. Engineers turn dreams into reality.