Talk:Sikorsky X2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Aviation Portal

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

Rotorcraft task force

[edit] Article expansion

I am currently working on expanding the text of the article at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky X2. Feel free to contribute there. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Military helicopters

Is this aircraft being funded by a military service or by DARPA? I thought this was a private research venture by Sikorsky to expand the technology and information on coaxial rotor systems. It carries no X-plane or X-helicopter designation. Just wondering. --Born2flie 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops! It was probably left over from the article I used to start the page (Sikorsky S-69 I believe). I've removed. I don't usually mess with the cats (as you've noticed before!), so thanks for spotting that. To my knowledge, it is a private project, though some DARPA funds may be involved. - BillCJ 18:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Readiness

The X2 demonstrator is a fully internally funded project (hence some of the delays experienced over the last couple years). Prototype is about 90% complete at Schweizer/Sikrosky "Hawkworks" in Elmira, NY and is being prepped for unloaded ground testing. Theres a lot of info thats not in public domain as of yet, so I need to triple check what is allowed to be divulged.--Cefoskey 16:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, any info that has been publically released is usable, either in Sikorsky press releases, or in reliable publications. Anything else would be original research anyway, and not usable.

I have a sandbox page set up at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky X2. It has a couple of large article texts in it, but needs to be rewritten to avoid copyvios. I intended to get to this in June, but have been distracted, and keep forgetting to get back to it. Rewriting large amounts of text is not my best attribute, so I keep procrastinating. If you'd like to work on it, feel free - Form you work on the V-22 page, you seem to be good at rewriting text - disputes not withstanding, I mean that sincerely. I would love to have the expanded article ready by the time the X2 is rolled out or makes its first flight. - BillCJ 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I only made the commentary on public domain indo due to the fact that a lot of times the engineers working on projects arent fully made aware of when IP becomes public. My rule of thumb is that it a bad idea to mention specifics concerning an AC I have done design work on before I can readily find the same information posted elsewhere online. The X2 is definitely no exception, as I have yet to see any photos or specs I have on my desk posted on the web. I will certainly review what youve got in the sandbox, though. --Cefoskey 19:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Now the V-22 interest make more sense! ABC was a competitor in JVX, no? (Said somewhat in jest.) JVX may have been before your time - I was only 12!. Anyway, truthfully, the V-22 may have been to big a jump in size, and an ABC-type aircraft in its size range might have been less risky, though evidently the technology wasn't quite ready yet either, per the X2 articles. Finding specifications for the X2 has been difficult, but I suspect they'll come out around the time of first filght, perhaps. Would love to talk off the record by email, as I've always been fascinated by compound helicopters and VTOLs. (Who would have thunk it, as I created the S-69, X2, X-49, and Piacecki 16H pages, and expanded the S-72 page.) PS, seriously, have there been any photos of the actual X2 released yet? Would by great to get some for the article, but I'm not asking for anything below-board. Glad to have you looking over the article -one of the best things you can do is to spot outright errors, and point us to the right sources to use. - BillCJ 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my main interest has been in the CH148/US101/HH-47 articles, as you probably noticed (VXX/MHP/CSARX). Having been heavily involved in the H92 for VXX and MHP has put me at an "advantage" for a lot of that information. I am eagerly awaiting the CH-148 deployment in early 2009. As far as V-22 goes, well us helo designers have our "opinions" on convertible AC, especially @ Sikorsky who will be directly competing with the BA609 with a commercial X2 variant. If you havent checked recently, Sikorsky has posted numerous new X2 mission brief pdfs [1]. (Just checked and it looks like they took down the high speed attack X2 one...ill have to dig it up for you). There are no publically released X2 photos, but that might change very soon with ground testing just around the corner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cefoskey (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sure to check out the .pdfs later today. Yes, an image of an attack X2 would be awesome. S-92/CH-148, huh? Check the edit history on the CH-148 page - it was one of the first articles I ever created, as a split from the S-92 page, originally as the H-92. the H-92 page eventually evolved to just cover the CH-148, and we put back the H-92 info on the S-92 page. From afar, I've always liked the S-92, and I've always thought it would have been a better airframe to replace the Navy CH-46s and HH-60s that the MH-60S "Knighthawk" is replacing. And a better VXX - with the problems Lockheed is having on the VH-71, it must be driving you guys nuts! I'd like to see the S-92 get a major US DOD contract, as I think it's a good design - I guess CSRAX is you last big shot for the time being, huh? I was a bit surprised to see Canada go that way, given their political history with the EH101/CH-149.

PS, any way you can find out if the CH-53K's GE engines have been assigned a T-number as yet? Just curious. Another user and I are working up an article for that new monster at User:Fnlayson/Sikorsky CH-53K. Feel free to stop by there too. - BillCJ 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think over the past year, a lot of the problems the VH-71 has been having warrants a big "told ya so" from all of us 92 guys but hey, thats the way the cookie crumbles. With all the controversy surroundign the CSARX procurement and the GAO upheld protests, we may yet see an H92 get into the US military inventory. The H92 winning MHP in canada is about as political of a decision as youll ever see. Not only do they already operate CH-149s, but they ended up paying a hefty cancellation fee, all because of opposing political parties being in control at the different time periods. Kind of like the USA...

Since Im an airframe guy, I havent been much into systems on 53K, and the only designation ive seen in passing is the GE38-1B youve listed on your page. --Cefoskey 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)