Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did The Sikorsky S-72 "X-Wing" Fail?  
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10398 times:

Hello,

I was wondering why the Sikorsky S-72 "X-wing" failed. From the description of this aircraft, it seemed as if it had a promising future with the Army and NASA, then possibly on to civilian versions. It was a hybrid helicopter/aircraft, that could take off vertically, but could shut down its rotors in flight, and had the speed of a jet aircraft. However, the aircraft never made it, and was Withdrawn from use in the early 90s:





8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10381 times:

Money, feasibility with current technology and lack of interest from high enough up.

The thing was a little ahead of it's time, but they got some good info from the program. It'll come again sometime.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 10347 times:

Probably a fair amount of lobbying from the Osprey crowd of the "Special Interest" machine that is the defense industry, too. Too similar, too cheap, too threatening to the cash-rich money pit that the V-22 promised it could be...


There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10267 times:

Quoting N231YE (Thread starter):
Probably a fair amount of lobbying from the Osprey crowd of the "Special Interest" machine that is the defense industry, too. Too similar, too cheap, too threatening to the cash-rich money pit that the V-22 promised it could be...

Probably no connection whatsoever. The X wing was a basic research aircraft that was cancelled right about the time the V-22 hit FSD; maybe even a year or two earlier. Notably, it did not ever attempt a conversion between flight modes. I'm not even sure that it ever flew with power to the rotors for that matter.

Also, since the X wing money was coming from NASA vs primarily USMC for V-22 it's even more doubtful. PX Kelly and his predecessor were powerful and influential but I don't think their reach extended to NASA by any means. It certainly wasn't because Dick Cheney was a big fan of the V-22 either.

Beyond this, the X wing technology had not even been demonstrated, much less matured at this time; even now two decades later the aerodynamics required have not been demonstrated in practice. In contrast, the tilt-rotor concept had been studied extensively and successfully over the better part of two decades with the XV-3 and XV-15. Boeing had also demonstrated use of a composite rotorcraft airframe with the Model 360 and was at the time at least 5-10 years ahead of Sikorsky in rotor blade technology.

Another important factor to consider is the CH-53. Remember, the V-22 began just a few years after the Desert One debacle and at the time promised to eliminate some very big problems in Marine aviation exemplified by what happened during the failed hostage rescue attempt. Sikorsky could have proposed a larger X wing but this would have magnified the technical risk even more; it would also have been an implicit admission that the CH-53 wasn't up to this type of mission. The reality is that they reasonably did not attempt this and instead pursued(unsuccessfully) the X wing as a funded research project and improved versions of the CH-53(very successfully).

Unfortunately a combination of over ambitious requirements, poor program management, schizoid funding, and serious problems from unexpected areas like hydraulics put it about a decade and a half behind where it was originally expected and obviously much over the original budget.

One good thing you can say for the X wing was that it looked really cool on the cover of Popular Science as a painting.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineAeroweanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1610 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10263 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I worked on X-wing. From the very beginning, it was apparent to me that they were pouring tons of money into a concept only supported by wishful thinking. After seeing this, I avoided the project like the plague.

The original funding came from DARPA and it was pushed by Bob Williams, who later pushed another wishful thinking project - NASP.

The conversion of the RSRA to carry X-wing never flew and was a waste of a perfectly good airframe.


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10247 times:

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 3):
Probably no connection whatsoever. The X wing was a basic research aircraft that was cancelled right about the time the V-22 hit FSD;



Quoting Aeroweanie (Reply 4):
worked on X-wing. From the very beginning, it was apparent to me that they were pouring tons of money into a concept only supported by wishful thinking.

Thank you BHMBAGLOCK and Aeroweanie for concise technical replies. Some days it seems that there are more conspiracy theories revolving around the V-22 Osprey than the JFK assassination.

Wait! The V-22 is built in Texas and JFK was shot in Texas! Just a coincidence? I think not.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 10229 times:

Interesting...I forgot about the fact that the V-22 was in the works at the same time, thus, common sense would say that the better of the conflicting programs wins.

Anyways, thanks for the responses.

N231YE


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1610 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10214 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Gee, I saw "X-wing" and the flash of bad memories led me to miss the other comments.

The JVX program, that led to the V-22, came to life in 1982. Lockheed actually started X-wing in the mid-1970s, but bailed and DARPA convinced Sikorsky to pick it up in the late 1970s. X-wing died in the late 1980s. X-wing's demise was unrelated to JVX and the V-22. During the Reagan/Bush I years, military development money flowed very freely, so the two programs didn't compete for funds.

Sikorsky contemplated bidding on JVX and for one short period (a day or two) had an agreement to partner with Rockwell Columbus. This all fell apart and only Bell-Boeing bid on the program.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4879 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9879 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
It'll come again sometime.

Hasn't it already done so?.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-set-for-first-flight-in-june.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...flight-for-piasecki-speedhawk.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...pot-for-radical-rotor-designs.html

http://www.defense-update.com/events/2006/summary/ausa06air.htm

.....albeit in different guises.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Did The Sikorsky S-72 "X-Wing" Fail?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Does The A-7 Have That Weird Wing? posted Thu Jun 17 2004 01:20:11 by Mirrodie
Did The 48th FW Deploy For "Enduring Freedom"? posted Thu Dec 27 2001 01:00:51 by CX747
Why Did RB-57F Need The Extra J 60 Turbojets? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 23:20:31 by 747400sp
The Tactic Called "scrambling" posted Sun Jul 16 2006 23:44:52 by Lehpron
"The Bedford Incident" posted Mon Nov 14 2005 22:25:54 by RG828
Do The Marines Use A "VH-53"? posted Tue Sep 6 2005 20:00:48 by Propatriamori
The X-33: Why Did It Fail? posted Tue Aug 16 2005 05:26:48 by Citation X
Why Did Canada Choose The F-18? posted Tue Feb 17 2004 10:35:53 by Vio
When Will The Nimitz Arrive "In Theater" posted Tue Mar 25 2003 05:59:49 by CX747
F-14 Carrying The Brunt Of "Enduring Freedom" posted Tue Nov 20 2001 21:46:35 by CX747
Why Did The Usaf Pick The 742 Over The 743? posted Tue Mar 30 2010 14:31:04 by overloaduk
Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15? posted Tue Jun 24 2008 19:10:39 by Blackbird
Why Did The French Navy Operate The F-8 posted Sat Mar 19 2005 18:58:58 by RampRat74
Why Does The A-7 Have That Weird Wing? posted Thu Jun 17 2004 01:20:11 by Mirrodie
Did The 48th FW Deploy For "Enduring Freedom"? posted Thu Dec 27 2001 01:00:51 by CX747
Why Did RB-57F Need The Extra J 60 Turbojets? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 23:20:31 by 747400sp
The Tactic Called "scrambling" posted Sun Jul 16 2006 23:44:52 by Lehpron
"The Bedford Incident" posted Mon Nov 14 2005 22:25:54 by RG828
Do The Marines Use A "VH-53"? posted Tue Sep 6 2005 20:00:48 by Propatriamori
The X-33: Why Did It Fail? posted Tue Aug 16 2005 05:26:48 by Citation X

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format