Chinese high-speed compound helicopters

Triton · Veteran Member - Level 2

Chinese high-speed compound helicopters

Stingray · Administrator

LOL!

--

From Deino and here:

http://chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/chinese-z-x-experimental-compound.html

Stingray · Administrator

More:

Leela25 · Global Moderator

USA: Look at us! We got a high-speed coaxial-rotor heli!

France: Oh yeah? We got a high-speed compound heli!

China: Oh yeah??!! Well... we got... a high-speed coaxial-rotor compound heli! HA!!

USA: -_-

France: -_-

Pepper · Veteran Member - Level 3

Leela25 wrote:
USA: Look at us! We got a high-speed coaxial-rotor heli!
France: Oh yeah? We got a high-speed compound heli!
China: Oh yeah??!! Well... we got... a high-speed coaxial-rotor compound heli! HA!!
USA: -_-
France: -_-

I demand a reaction comic out of this. biggrin

-- Edited by Leela25 on Friday 3rd of April 2020 02:23:37 PM

fluttercopter · Veteran Member - Level 2

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".

retroistic · Veteran Member - Level 2

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

hillberg · Veteran Member - Level 2

Design is more than skin deep, You can come up with nice little toys anytime, but to get it flying? A totaly different story.

Hell(i)Master · Veteran Member - Level 1

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.

subashseo · New User

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.

Flyboy · Veteran Member - Level 2

subashseo wrote:
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?

Rafale D · Veteran Member - Level 1

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?

Leela25 · Global Moderator

Rafale D wrote:
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)

Stingray · Administrator

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.

Rafale D · Veteran Member - Level 1

Thank you for your prompt action. smile

hillberg · Veteran Member - Level 2

Just what we need in the future battle field

Sir we suffered great causalities on the assault all our troops were rendered useless as quick as they disembarked .

Were the enemy waiting? massive defensive fire power? death rays? Shore leave?

Engineering failure...Stuff was flung everywhere , The enemy knew what hit them

Dang side props did it again ! How's the recruitment program going?

Leela25 · Global Moderator

hillberg wrote:
Just what we need in the future battle field

Sir we suffered great causalities on the assault all our troops were rendered useless as quick as they disembarked .

Were the enemy waiting? massive defensive fire power? death rays? Shore leave?

Engineering failure...Stuff was flung everywhere , The enemy knew what hit them

Dang side props did it again ! How's the recruitment program going?

the exact scenario that played in peoples minds when the Eurocopter X3 compound was proposed for JMR/FVL.... xD

(to be fair troops/passengers would have disembarked from the rear on those designs, unlike the Chinese compound but still...)

-- Edited by Leela25 on Saturday 11th of April 2020 05:43:06 PM

Rafale D · Veteran Member - Level 1

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?

Pepper · Veteran Member - Level 3

The X3 was just a technology demonstrator, yes they most likely would've redesigned it for troop-carrying.

Stingray · Administrator

Another high-speed rotorcraft concept model shown at China Helicopter Expo 2017:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/china-helicopter-expo-2017.t8171/

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/china-helicopter-expo-2017.t8171/page-2

http://indiandefence.com/threads/chinese-military-helicopters.57238/page-3#post-594353

Rafale D · Veteran Member - Level 1

Pepper wrote:
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.

Leela25 · Global Moderator

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).

retroistic · Veteran Member - Level 2

So that old patent was confirmed to be the X4? Interesting!

Leela25 · Global Moderator

RETRO!!!!! WELCOME BACK :O

retroistic · Veteran Member - Level 2

Thanks. Nice to see this forum still active.