So when do we get a RC version of this??? lol. I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to do since most 3 and 4 channel RC helicopters employ the dual main rotor design.
@cutiknet it only looks that way because the frame rate of the camera is matching up with the rotational speed of the blades. Merely a cinematic illusion.
@cutiknet Uh, no... the blades are spinning incredibly fast, the camera's framerate just distorts it so that it looks like it's spinning slowly. Same reason why car rims look slow when a car is going fast.
I know they run choppers on piston engines. but I was wondering. if they put air intakes like on the side of an F1 car on either side of this thing. could they run a V6 in place of the turbine. then you could run it on unleaded. I could literally park that thing in my backyard with room to spare. and roll it into my garage.
Looks a little weird, but we'll get used to it when it halves the trip and lands on a dime. Wonder where the tilt-rotor fits into this picture? Obsolete? Wonder what price point they'll be aiming for?
They already downed 36 billion on Comanche, now they will build another tiny chopper which will turn out to have a too tiny hull to accomodate all the gizmos and weapons. As usually. this will be a joke chopter if compared to real choppers like- Ka 92 or Mil x1.
@unatics This is a tech demonstrator. Its only purpose is to test the compound coaxial rotor system, which will no doubt be integrated into progressively larger aircraft.
pretty average if compared to russian choppers. This is tiny, with no retractable gears, can take no additional load,. What is the purpose of it, just to demonstrate technology that russians had decades ago? American flying machines are becoming smaller and smaller, and new products are created more enad more rarely. Designwise also average.
Looks like a possible replacement for the Osprey that keeps having problems. Bring the two rotors in and stack them, then use a separate rotor to propel forward.
@zingerkid Granted this helicopter is tiny, but could the technology be used on a larger craft. I know the Osprey is MORE stable than it was originally, but has it been completely fixed -- as in to the point where a similar design could be used for passengers? It could sure solve a lot of "short runway" problems in the third world.
I heard them report 700 ft. per. min., somehow I thought it would of been per sec. 700 ft. per min.just doesn't seem right, but then i could very well be totally wrong, if so didn't mean anything by it, just courous is all.
@newscruzer1 definitely feet per minute... 700 feet per second would be 42,000 feet per minute, which isn't unachievable... for a fighter jet or spacecraft lol
I'm french and I love USA and USA technology especially in aviation subjects. I finished my career as an instructor on Boeing, Douglas and Airbus aicraft (not Tristar pardon me) and retiered presently. Many thanks for this beautiful video
Fantastic job Sikorsky. What beautiful lines and grace. Would adding short stubby wings like on the Bell 222 give any added benefit to the aircraft as far as lift or stability? While it looks like you are right on with the design just an observation to enhance speed with stability may be achieved like the wing fairings of a jet.
@TennesseeJimmie, @psyclistic and @caspia99 who think the track sucks, I strongly disagree! I think this track is awesome! I also think they did a great job at keeping the sound at the right levels so you can hear what the tower and pilot are saying, and when there is radio silence, the track wasn't turned up too high. If you agree, thumbs up!
Unfortunately this Sikorsky approach is to expensive. The X3 Eurocopter is advancing quickly and reaching extreme stability and success in it`s latest test flights. The X3 is a much!! less costly approach. At the end of the day it`s all about prices. That`s why Eurocopter is now the biggest helicopter producer on the planet. They understand markets. The Sikorsky looks very cool though. Great job to the teams working on this.
The sound of "music" so distracting and irritating that I just could not watch to the end. It was no sense to watch it with no narrator. This is the worst soundtrack that I ever heard. I love the proposal of Mr/Ms TennesseeJimmie who post a comment under this video. Guys, let do it!!! Where is the creator of this video? I do not want even forward this video to my friends because of this soundtrack.
@TennesseeJimmie I don't know why, but aerospace companies seem to think the lamest music is cool for their promos. Honestly, I think they would be much better off just playing some patriotic big band music than this trance crap. Seriously, though, ALL (or many) of the big aerospace companies seem to do this. Makes me ashamed to be an aerospace engineer. But then again, the aerospace industry often makes me ashamed to be an aerospace engineer.
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But Elite controllers don't want ppl to be free from the costs of energy,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the energy revolution!
This video should have been shot at a different exposure rate. Any other exposure rate. Some people will be confused thinking that the blades don't move sometimes.
You need to learn your history. Igor Sikorski may have BEEN Russian, but he moved to the US early in his career. Coaxial choppers have been around since June of 1909! But the first MODERN working coaxial design was 1930, by a French dude, Corradino D'Ascanio with the D'AT3
@ewthmatth *irony not detected* anyhow yes, we did! But we didnt stole the cool looking stuff! MB cose US never had those back in Cold War days. Stilling cool stuff is low!
The Russians never made cool looking stuff, they made cheap, easy to build by non-skilled staff. Look at the MiG-25 for an example. Everyone thought it was awesome until one was delivered by a defector and we found htem to be total crap.
@EvilxMerlin, it might seem like i would care about your opinion.. but in fact i dont. Just dont feel like wasting my time trying to prove another ignorant American-stuff-rulles fanboy that his perception on Russian stuff is rather a product of the propaganda machine, than a set of real facts.
P.S. Ka-50/Su 47.. if u dont find them hot ur officially gay.
The Su 47 STILL does not exist today. ONE of them was built, and it was a technical FAILURE. Read up on it. I never said American rules all. America does happen to have the best fighter jet and bombers in the air currently however. Russia has some of the best choppers.
@EvilxMerlin, lol, what the?..)) Su 47 is a prototype to test new technologies, it was never supposed to be mass-produced!!)) And as a technology tester it worked perfectly fine, didnt it?
F22 is the best, until PAK FA is not fully developed. F35 is a failure;) As for the bombers..thats a big question.
No, the technology didn't work perfectly fine. Almost NONE of it made it into any of MiG, Su or Tu's designes. The PAK FA is years out and the F-22 continues to improve, it already has more speed, better range and a FAR superior radar system. How the FUCK is the F-35 a failure???
@EvilxMerlin, Su 47 tested the composed materials, the pressure they can handle(due to the wings the pressure was much higher than it would be in normal conditions) and so on. It was developed for PAK FA.
F22 is canceled, and ya..it makes sense that US improves stuff it has in it inventory.. so what?o_O
@EvilxMerlin, its funny when stupid people try to look all cool and aggressive, but..well..fail and still look damn stupid;)
I will make it easy:
a) F22 is cancelled. Like the old 3rd BMW is not produced anymore,yet is in service. Just to avoid any further attacks of stupidity: no, f22 is not an old BMW.
b) No comments.
c) F35 supplements the canceled F22. No,no,no..dont thank me, no no.. im not a superman, just doing my job!..
You even said it the F-35 SUPPLEMENTS the F-22. SUPPLMENT is not replace. The F-35 is not a competitor to the F-22 or the PAK FA. Make a bet the F-22 production line starts up again in two years? Jesus you are a dumb cunt.
@EvilxMerlin, thats random.. did you just called Jesus dumb? Anywho, where did you get the BS about 2 years? Are you even familiar with the whole story, or are you just being American? Look, F22 was way 2 expensive, they cancelled the production and developed F35 instead. And yes, F35 is a supplement to F22, and a competitor to the PAK FA, Eurofighter and any other jets produced, at least in theory it is viewed that way. F35 would b supplied 2 all the NATO allies as the main fighting jet.
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Go fuckyourself and keep dreaming about the PAK FA. Some of us are actual combat pilots, not armchair warriors that think they know it all.
@EvilxMerlin, you did not mention anything to counter my facts. The fact that you are a combat pilot does not change the fact that F35 is damn peace of crap. You do not develop machinery, you fucking fly it! That is, no one cares what you think. Your job is to fly what ever they give you. Thus, when you are stuck flying this crap, you might as well take a defensive position and pretend you enjoy it. Look, i understand! What ever comforts your useless existence,dude;) Have a nice day!
You have yet to prove one iota that the F35 is a piece of crap. Hint, it was designed to replace teh F16, A10, F18 and Harrier. Guess what it performs better than all four, carries a higher weapons load all of them, better TtoW ratio than all of them and FAR more manuverable than all of them. So again, how is it a piece of crap? I'll be waiting.
@EvilxMerlin, the best thing about F35 is the stealth and the electronics. By those parameters F35 is ahead of old jets. Yet, when it comes to combat radius, max take of weight ad the ferry range.. well.. i gave you the characteristics, there is no way you can even put it in one line with the Raptor or PAK FA. And even when compared with Su35, Eurofighter, Rafael.. F35 is way behind in performance.
Again, the F-35 isn't supposed to compete with any of the planes you listed (the Rafael sucks BTW and the Typhoon II not far behind it). It is designed as primarily a ground attack aircraft. Does the A-10 compete with any of those planes? No. You yourself said the F-35 complements the F-22. that is what is designed to do. Serve as the mud-mover while getting air cover by the F-22's. The best thing about the F-35 is its stealth, electronics, engine and mulit-role capabilities.
@EvilxMerlin, but multi-role is ill-performed. With a ferry range of 1000 kilometers the combat range should be ~400 maximum. I mean you have to admit that it is way to little.
Also F35 is presented in the World as THE 5th gen air superiority fighter. It might not be in US, but it certainly is seen as in Uk, Aus nd Canada.
You do realize that the Combat Radius of the F-35 is more than 2x that of the A-10 right? The F-35A is almost 600 miles right? The F-35B 450 miles, and the F-35C is almost 650 miles. Compare to the F-16 which is 340 miles in a ground support role, or the 300 miles of the Harrier. Hell even the F-22's combat radius is 410 miles.
At this time its still unproven. We can agree on that. The planes it is scheduled to replace have fantastic histories, and it has very big shoes to fill. BTW the F-35 is marketed as the "The World’s Only 5th Generation Multirole Fighter". Which it is.
@EvilxMerlin, and one other thing: listen, im not insulting you, so why dont you grow fucking up, and act civilized? Or is it 2 much 2 ask from an American? If it is, just let me know, and il finish our small chit chat to avoid wasting any more time.
@EvilxMerlin, people are angry when they are afraid. If assaulting me comforts you and hides your lack of brain capacity, comforts your ego and raises your self esteem - so be it;)
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the revolution!
@zakooldude "Roger" remains a universal, English response for "acknowledged" or transmission received. I've got 1000 hrs. rotary wing time, and I've used and heard it used abundant times. 'course if all you fly is a video game or a broomstick, perhaps . . ..
@joytutor I'm a pilot, and no, not an armchair pilot on a broomstick. "Roger" may have been universal 20 years ago but now it's widely considered poor form and you should at least answer with your tail number.
Stuff and nonsense, no respect intended. I flew C model Huey gunships in RVN. In the military, the home of real pilots, "roger" remains as I said it does, an acknowledgment of transmission received. Fashion and vanity play no part in avionic commo. Your remark assures that you are a dweeb, no respect intended. Tail number?!? "We don' need no steenkeen' tail number." My call sign was Mad Dog 21 proud supporter of the infamous Greyhounds of the 240th AHC and glad detractor of posers such as you.
@joytutor You can't be fucking serious, right? We're talking domestic aviation, not macho air force lingo here. ALL current texts on flight training say to avoid the use of "Roger" because it's ambiguous.
@zakooldude This was a VFR departure where all clearances or instructions may be responded to with a "roger" (with the exception of a "hold short" clearance).
@sk76driver Actually I think you're right. I can't find anything in the FAR/AIM to contradict that. I was always taught to read back all clearances, however....
He has two rigid rotors spinning on top,and the vibration is acceptable,like two bo105s spinning "Just my opinion". Im wondering if control rates remain the same all the way through all the regimes without tweaking their exponential travels so that the pilot does not induce occilation. Maybe stabilization rates remain the same all the way through?
@tekutaro Helos can auto-rotate so they won't fall out of the sky like rocks. As they fall the airflow hitting the bottom of the rotors causes them to spin and create a lot of air resistance. These emergency landings can be rough but definitely survivable with hardly any injury to you or the aircraft.
@1SidIcarus1 Negative, Kamov has no property of coaxial rotor technology, Sikorsky has tested thats technoloty on 70s S-69 or 60s Gyrodyne QH-50 DASH or Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne
@minoslas well the first prototype using coaxial rotor technology KA-8 took off on November 12 1947 and in 1956 ka-15 was the first production coaxial rotors helicopter 356 were built. Shortly after that ka-18 was built using the same technology. and a coupe of more Ка-25 (1968), Ка-26 (1967)
so , no one knows how much it costs?
Guess I'll have to call them!
gabigowriel 1 week ago
Wadsworth Constant applies here.
frahniesuperstar 3 weeks ago
460 km/h "cruise mode"?!
damn, I WANT ONE!
Really now, what would be the price for one able to cruise at 250 kts?
gabigowriel 3 weeks ago
Nice toy for millionaires no more.
Mann1000able 2 months ago
So when do we get a RC version of this??? lol. I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to do since most 3 and 4 channel RC helicopters employ the dual main rotor design.
03chrisv 2 months ago
ну и шляпа.
porasya 5 months ago
its a cross bread of a plane n helicopter. im making an r/c version of this 4 my science project
bladingcuber 5 months ago
wow, awesome technology - helicopter, which levitate with almost not moving blades.
cutiknet 5 months ago in playlist Избранные видеоролики пользователя cutiknet
@cutiknet it only looks that way because the frame rate of the camera is matching up with the rotational speed of the blades. Merely a cinematic illusion.
kuech3333 2 months ago
@cutiknet Uh, no... the blades are spinning incredibly fast, the camera's framerate just distorts it so that it looks like it's spinning slowly. Same reason why car rims look slow when a car is going fast.
dpcnull 3 weeks ago
@dpcnull it's called temporal aliasing
drmoshie 3 weeks ago
Wow ! Very nice!
mariovg8879 5 months ago
Very nice!
mariovg8879 5 months ago
Airwolf, eat your heat out!
marq74 6 months ago
I know they run choppers on piston engines. but I was wondering. if they put air intakes like on the side of an F1 car on either side of this thing. could they run a V6 in place of the turbine. then you could run it on unleaded. I could literally park that thing in my backyard with room to spare. and roll it into my garage.
Lastindependentthink 6 months ago
Looks like a blimp
primeplanet 6 months ago
The real life Airwolf :p
Gnomleif 6 months ago
No autorotation for this one..
oysterlicker 6 months ago
Bad ass.
agus2001 7 months ago
They need a better camera, and someone should fire the company DJ, he's not so useful.... -__-
CessnaAviator317 7 months ago
Im still impress how fast americans made prototyps..
There must be not realy funny inside cobine,Pilot say "wow that was amazing" and voice is shacing the same as his body) Lmao.
FMorris308 8 months ago
Comment removed
FMorris308 8 months ago
Looks a little weird, but we'll get used to it when it halves the trip and lands on a dime. Wonder where the tilt-rotor fits into this picture? Obsolete? Wonder what price point they'll be aiming for?
stachowi 9 months ago
Awesome!!! Great job Sikorsky. Stay in the lead, like you always do...
laghater 10 months ago
The lettering "X2" has the subtle Russian style...like Sukhoi. I guess that is the tradition of Sikorsky.
grasuh 10 months ago
in 70 years we will have our own UFO
:D
mercanaries3 10 months ago 2
@mercanaries3 hel yeah we beat aliens xD
Djhotlover 10 months ago
badass
lio77744 10 months ago
They already downed 36 billion on Comanche, now they will build another tiny chopper which will turn out to have a too tiny hull to accomodate all the gizmos and weapons. As usually. this will be a joke chopter if compared to real choppers like- Ka 92 or Mil x1.
unatics 1 year ago
@unatics This is a tech demonstrator. Its only purpose is to test the compound coaxial rotor system, which will no doubt be integrated into progressively larger aircraft.
Spartan043 11 months ago
Music track was rather repetitive and monotonous.
paocho3 1 year ago
pretty average if compared to russian choppers. This is tiny, with no retractable gears, can take no additional load,. What is the purpose of it, just to demonstrate technology that russians had decades ago? American flying machines are becoming smaller and smaller, and new products are created more enad more rarely. Designwise also average.
unatics 1 year ago 2
@unatics dude it broke the helicopter world speed record. kinda "new" technology that the russians "didn't have decades ago"
stevebean1234 1 year ago 2
@unatics design average ??????? WTF ?????? sorry i realise you are of course an aeronautical engineer yourself aren you !!
evildogbilly 2 months ago
Looks like a possible replacement for the Osprey that keeps having problems. Bring the two rotors in and stack them, then use a separate rotor to propel forward.
Calidris0 1 year ago
@Calidris0 The problems with the Osprey have been fixed. Plus this is a tiny helicopter compared to the Osprey.
zingerkid 1 year ago
@zingerkid Granted this helicopter is tiny, but could the technology be used on a larger craft. I know the Osprey is MORE stable than it was originally, but has it been completely fixed -- as in to the point where a similar design could be used for passengers? It could sure solve a lot of "short runway" problems in the third world.
Calidris0 1 year ago
Retreating blade stall not a problem on a co-axial i guess, very nice.
groovyengineer 1 year ago
Great!!!
sufa256 1 year ago
Good video and great accomplihment..but that headache music/noise was abnoxious to say the least.
georgehbutler 1 year ago
Good, this will make sure we win the battle of LA.
LuisReefTank 1 year ago
I heard them report 700 ft. per. min., somehow I thought it would of been per sec. 700 ft. per min.just doesn't seem right, but then i could very well be totally wrong, if so didn't mean anything by it, just courous is all.
This is some kind of machine, very impressive.
newscruzer1 1 year ago
@newscruzer1 Climb rate not airspeed.
Prometheus203 1 year ago
@newscruzer1 definitely feet per minute... 700 feet per second would be 42,000 feet per minute, which isn't unachievable... for a fighter jet or spacecraft lol
JPNmark 1 year ago
I'm french and I love USA and USA technology especially in aviation subjects. I finished my career as an instructor on Boeing, Douglas and Airbus aicraft (not Tristar pardon me) and retiered presently. Many thanks for this beautiful video
cirape1 1 year ago
So, two contra-rotating coaxial rotors, can do away with the tail rotor. Then a prop is used for forward propulsion.
Seems like a cross between a helicopter and autogyro.
peckerwood57 1 year ago
It can't lift anything but DAMN!!!!! THAT'S SWEET!!!!!
lostburro 1 year ago
Fantastic job Sikorsky. What beautiful lines and grace. Would adding short stubby wings like on the Bell 222 give any added benefit to the aircraft as far as lift or stability? While it looks like you are right on with the design just an observation to enhance speed with stability may be achieved like the wing fairings of a jet.
Again outstanding work Sikorsky
Wayne
wdibert 1 year ago
@TennesseeJimmie, @psyclistic and @caspia99 who think the track sucks, I strongly disagree! I think this track is awesome! I also think they did a great job at keeping the sound at the right levels so you can hear what the tower and pilot are saying, and when there is radio silence, the track wasn't turned up too high. If you agree, thumbs up!
Generic3072 1 year ago 40
Outstanding, great job Sikorsky X2 Team.
NYSLOTMAN 1 year ago
Unfortunately this Sikorsky approach is to expensive. The X3 Eurocopter is advancing quickly and reaching extreme stability and success in it`s latest test flights. The X3 is a much!! less costly approach. At the end of the day it`s all about prices. That`s why Eurocopter is now the biggest helicopter producer on the planet. They understand markets. The Sikorsky looks very cool though. Great job to the teams working on this.
EuroSon99 1 year ago
the rotors are so trippy 0_o
TheFapperman 1 year ago
waht this name of the music
luinicle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
can get better music than that?
steveo451 1 year ago
Thats awesome!!
Sikorsky is truly the worlds best helicopter desighners!
TheCORE87 1 year ago 4
The sound of "music" so distracting and irritating that I just could not watch to the end. It was no sense to watch it with no narrator. This is the worst soundtrack that I ever heard. I love the proposal of Mr/Ms TennesseeJimmie who post a comment under this video. Guys, let do it!!! Where is the creator of this video? I do not want even forward this video to my friends because of this soundtrack.
caspia99 1 year ago
The Bell 533 & Lockheed did better & had more seats In the 06s & 70s, What you said? Igor would slap you silly.
hillberg100 1 year ago
260KTS = almost 300MPH!
lst1195 1 year ago
How fast is 250 KTS in MPH?
lst1195 1 year ago
@lst1195 287 mph
kkoolboy1014 1 year ago
@kkoolboy1014 another 60mph and they'll match airwolf!
lesliejs 1 year ago
@lst1195 Multiply KTS by 1.15 to get MPH.
psyclistic 1 year ago
And arguing on the internet continues to be gay...
contrail25 1 year ago
Too bad its still slower than the worlds fastest helo - the Bell533
Hugewally 1 year ago
please have the person who ruined this video with that horrible noise bitch slapped until they understand how this video was ruined.
TennesseeJimmie 1 year ago
@TennesseeJimmie I don't know why, but aerospace companies seem to think the lamest music is cool for their promos. Honestly, I think they would be much better off just playing some patriotic big band music than this trance crap. Seriously, though, ALL (or many) of the big aerospace companies seem to do this. Makes me ashamed to be an aerospace engineer. But then again, the aerospace industry often makes me ashamed to be an aerospace engineer.
psyclistic 1 year ago
Comment removed
Generic3072 1 year ago
Sikorsky: Please MANUFACTURE this tandem two-seat X2 for the civilian general aviation market. I WANT one!
trapper963 1 year ago 2
cool
zuenpin 1 year ago
True, the sound sucks.
Going to an other video.
zvast 1 year ago
No sense of speed is ever conveyed to the viewer and yes I would like to know what it sounds like too.
skullasarus1 1 year ago
Look into History-Lockheed X-51 did better with more room in 1963-No record here.
hillberg100 1 year ago
I flew my Sikorsky 76A with a registered ground speed of 265 knots once....
Of course that was with a 120 knot TAILWIND!! ;o)
sk76driver 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But Elite controllers don't want ppl to be free from the costs of energy,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the energy revolution!
ivylsp 1 year ago
I...WANT....ONE!
yellowmetalcyborg 1 year ago
it's only 60knots faster than Ka-52 "official" maximum speed...
andrzejartymowicz 1 year ago
@andrzejartymowicz
In helecopter terms that is a HUGE number.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
This video should have been shot at a different exposure rate. Any other exposure rate. Some people will be confused thinking that the blades don't move sometimes.
That said, cool job Sikorsky.
kinsmed 1 year ago 24
@kinsmed They simply made it on purpose to make it look more impressive...
adrienlac 1 year ago
Wow ..what is this !!! i want one of this.
u2backontop1 1 year ago
hahaahahaha, OMG, That's Old russian technology -> Kamov Ka-50 and others....
AnimaMortuus 1 year ago
@AnimaMortuus This one is faster than all of those though.
ewthmatth 1 year ago
KA-50 doesn't have a pusher prop and can't do 250 knots.
Coaxial rotors aren't a "Russian technology". They've been around since the dawn of rotary flight.
wun1gee 1 year ago 2
@wun1gee, sure..;)
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@AnimaMortuus
You need to learn your history. Igor Sikorski may have BEEN Russian, but he moved to the US early in his career. Coaxial choppers have been around since June of 1909! But the first MODERN working coaxial design was 1930, by a French dude, Corradino D'Ascanio with the D'AT3
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin thanks for the info, i'll learn about!
AnimaMortuus 1 year ago
Dziwnie widać te śmigła, prawda? Jakby stały w miejscu.
Bunchpoland 1 year ago
*irony*Its so not ka-50/-52 wonna be*irony ends here*. China stills our stuff, now US too.. thats low.
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0 *irony* Russian never "stole" any USA technology *irony ends here*
ewthmatth 1 year ago
@ewthmatth *irony not detected* anyhow yes, we did! But we didnt stole the cool looking stuff! MB cose US never had those back in Cold War days. Stilling cool stuff is low!
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
The Russians never made cool looking stuff, they made cheap, easy to build by non-skilled staff. Look at the MiG-25 for an example. Everyone thought it was awesome until one was delivered by a defector and we found htem to be total crap.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, it might seem like i would care about your opinion.. but in fact i dont. Just dont feel like wasting my time trying to prove another ignorant American-stuff-rulles fanboy that his perception on Russian stuff is rather a product of the propaganda machine, than a set of real facts.
P.S. Ka-50/Su 47.. if u dont find them hot ur officially gay.
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
The Su 47 STILL does not exist today. ONE of them was built, and it was a technical FAILURE. Read up on it. I never said American rules all. America does happen to have the best fighter jet and bombers in the air currently however. Russia has some of the best choppers.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, lol, what the?..)) Su 47 is a prototype to test new technologies, it was never supposed to be mass-produced!!)) And as a technology tester it worked perfectly fine, didnt it?
F22 is the best, until PAK FA is not fully developed. F35 is a failure;) As for the bombers..thats a big question.
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
No, the technology didn't work perfectly fine. Almost NONE of it made it into any of MiG, Su or Tu's designes. The PAK FA is years out and the F-22 continues to improve, it already has more speed, better range and a FAR superior radar system. How the FUCK is the F-35 a failure???
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, Su 47 tested the composed materials, the pressure they can handle(due to the wings the pressure was much higher than it would be in normal conditions) and so on. It was developed for PAK FA.
F22 is canceled, and ya..it makes sense that US improves stuff it has in it inventory.. so what?o_O
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
Um, the F-22 isn't cancelled, its still in service. And those in service continue to improve with software and hardware updates.
The composite materials used in the PAK FA have NOTHING in common with those used in the Su 47.
Again, educate youself. Holy crap.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, its funny when stupid people try to look all cool and aggressive, but..well..fail and still look damn stupid;)
I will make it easy:
a) F22 is cancelled. Like the old 3rd BMW is not produced anymore,yet is in service. Just to avoid any further attacks of stupidity: no, f22 is not an old BMW.
b) No comments.
c) F35 supplements the canceled F22. No,no,no..dont thank me, no no.. im not a superman, just doing my job!..
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
You even said it the F-35 SUPPLEMENTS the F-22. SUPPLMENT is not replace. The F-35 is not a competitor to the F-22 or the PAK FA. Make a bet the F-22 production line starts up again in two years? Jesus you are a dumb cunt.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, thats random.. did you just called Jesus dumb? Anywho, where did you get the BS about 2 years? Are you even familiar with the whole story, or are you just being American? Look, F22 was way 2 expensive, they cancelled the production and developed F35 instead. And yes, F35 is a supplement to F22, and a competitor to the PAK FA, Eurofighter and any other jets produced, at least in theory it is viewed that way. F35 would b supplied 2 all the NATO allies as the main fighting jet.
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Go fuckyourself and keep dreaming about the PAK FA. Some of us are actual combat pilots, not armchair warriors that think they know it all.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, you did not mention anything to counter my facts. The fact that you are a combat pilot does not change the fact that F35 is damn peace of crap. You do not develop machinery, you fucking fly it! That is, no one cares what you think. Your job is to fly what ever they give you. Thus, when you are stuck flying this crap, you might as well take a defensive position and pretend you enjoy it. Look, i understand! What ever comforts your useless existence,dude;) Have a nice day!
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
You have yet to prove one iota that the F35 is a piece of crap. Hint, it was designed to replace teh F16, A10, F18 and Harrier. Guess what it performs better than all four, carries a higher weapons load all of them, better TtoW ratio than all of them and FAR more manuverable than all of them. So again, how is it a piece of crap? I'll be waiting.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, the best thing about F35 is the stealth and the electronics. By those parameters F35 is ahead of old jets. Yet, when it comes to combat radius, max take of weight ad the ferry range.. well.. i gave you the characteristics, there is no way you can even put it in one line with the Raptor or PAK FA. And even when compared with Su35, Eurofighter, Rafael.. F35 is way behind in performance.
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
Again, the F-35 isn't supposed to compete with any of the planes you listed (the Rafael sucks BTW and the Typhoon II not far behind it). It is designed as primarily a ground attack aircraft. Does the A-10 compete with any of those planes? No. You yourself said the F-35 complements the F-22. that is what is designed to do. Serve as the mud-mover while getting air cover by the F-22's. The best thing about the F-35 is its stealth, electronics, engine and mulit-role capabilities.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, but multi-role is ill-performed. With a ferry range of 1000 kilometers the combat range should be ~400 maximum. I mean you have to admit that it is way to little.
Also F35 is presented in the World as THE 5th gen air superiority fighter. It might not be in US, but it certainly is seen as in Uk, Aus nd Canada.
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
You do realize that the Combat Radius of the F-35 is more than 2x that of the A-10 right? The F-35A is almost 600 miles right? The F-35B 450 miles, and the F-35C is almost 650 miles. Compare to the F-16 which is 340 miles in a ground support role, or the 300 miles of the Harrier. Hell even the F-22's combat radius is 410 miles.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, my bad, F35 is not that bad after all. Even though i still think its a peace of crap, it is good enough to supplement the "old stock".
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
At this time its still unproven. We can agree on that. The planes it is scheduled to replace have fantastic histories, and it has very big shoes to fill. BTW the F-35 is marketed as the "The World’s Only 5th Generation Multirole Fighter". Which it is.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, and one other thing: listen, im not insulting you, so why dont you grow fucking up, and act civilized? Or is it 2 much 2 ask from an American? If it is, just let me know, and il finish our small chit chat to avoid wasting any more time.
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
Poor little boy...
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, people are angry when they are afraid. If assaulting me comforts you and hides your lack of brain capacity, comforts your ego and raises your self esteem - so be it;)
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@EvilxMerlin, here are the basic stats on jets:
Su35; F35; F22; PAK FA
38k 31k 38k 37k - max take of weight
2.25 1.6+ 2.25 2+ - max speed (Mach)
4.5k 1k 3,2k 5,5k - ferry range in kilometers
All the info is publicly available.
P.S. F35B has much lower performance.
P.P.S on MTW depends the amount of missiles + fuel.
P.P.P.S. combat range is ~3 times lower than FR.
And that makes F35 a peace of crap.. an expensive peace of crap.
cNbikals0 1 year ago
@cNbikals0
You do realize what the F-35 is designed to do right? You do realize that it isn't designed to compete with either the F-22 or PAK FA right?
Holy crap man, educate yourself.
EvilxMerlin 1 year ago
Thats one sexy helicopter!
homobohemicus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Would've been cool if they tested the pilot's ejection seat.
xmassan20906 1 year ago
Would've been cool if they tested the pilot's ejector seat.
xmassan20906 1 year ago
It is creepy how the main rotors spin at juuuuuuuuuuust the right speed that they look like they're almost standing still when in flight... O_o;
Bad-ass lookin' chopper. >=)
--EVA_Unit_4A
CollectionDX 1 year ago
"wow, that was nice!"
KhanFus1on 1 year ago
Not really into choppers, but this is fucking cool man
bennymutant 1 year ago
there it is!!
YUTOOBJUNKE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the revolution!
RanaRene1425 1 year ago
Show. só ISSO.
dogstrongson 1 year ago
Reminds me of the AH-56 Cheyenne. Anyone else?
tman78au 1 year ago
@tman78au
It does look similar, especially at the front end
bennymutant 1 year ago
Nice of the pilots to have terrible radio etiquette. Since when is "Roger" an appropriate response to a takeoff clearance? (Hint: Never!)
zakooldude 1 year ago
@zakooldude "Roger" remains a universal, English response for "acknowledged" or transmission received. I've got 1000 hrs. rotary wing time, and I've used and heard it used abundant times. 'course if all you fly is a video game or a broomstick, perhaps . . ..
joytutor 1 year ago
@joytutor I'm a pilot, and no, not an armchair pilot on a broomstick. "Roger" may have been universal 20 years ago but now it's widely considered poor form and you should at least answer with your tail number.
zakooldude 1 year ago
Stuff and nonsense, no respect intended. I flew C model Huey gunships in RVN. In the military, the home of real pilots, "roger" remains as I said it does, an acknowledgment of transmission received. Fashion and vanity play no part in avionic commo. Your remark assures that you are a dweeb, no respect intended. Tail number?!? "We don' need no steenkeen' tail number." My call sign was Mad Dog 21 proud supporter of the infamous Greyhounds of the 240th AHC and glad detractor of posers such as you.
joytutor 1 year ago
@joytutor You can't be fucking serious, right? We're talking domestic aviation, not macho air force lingo here. ALL current texts on flight training say to avoid the use of "Roger" because it's ambiguous.
zakooldude 1 year ago
@zakooldude This was a VFR departure where all clearances or instructions may be responded to with a "roger" (with the exception of a "hold short" clearance).
sk76driver 1 year ago
@sk76driver Actually I think you're right. I can't find anything in the FAR/AIM to contradict that. I was always taught to read back all clearances, however....
zakooldude 1 year ago
My pilot blood get hot by watching this... :)
Jalpatine 1 year ago
Comment removed
Jalpatine 1 year ago
@pavelcheshev Igor Sikorsky was Russian too.
Max404s 1 year ago
Ferro, chapas, Borracha e... um engenhocas aeronáutico e é nisto que dá
Antonio53954 1 year ago
pretty sure the music is from the Chemical Brothers. Do you have the rights?
Cool chopper btw :)
gameboy1971 1 year ago
He has two rigid rotors spinning on top,and the vibration is acceptable,like two bo105s spinning "Just my opinion". Im wondering if control rates remain the same all the way through all the regimes without tweaking their exponential travels so that the pilot does not induce occilation. Maybe stabilization rates remain the same all the way through?
nipponhouseplayer 1 year ago
@nipponhouseplayer Its all fly by wire, computer controled, pilot uses joystick type controls to tell the computer what he wants it to do.
dlplost 1 year ago
If the motor stops... it just drops out of the sky?
tekutaro 1 year ago
@tekutaro Helos can auto-rotate so they won't fall out of the sky like rocks. As they fall the airflow hitting the bottom of the rotors causes them to spin and create a lot of air resistance. These emergency landings can be rough but definitely survivable with hardly any injury to you or the aircraft.
Gulfstream53432 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tekutaro "If the motor stops... it just drops out of the sky?"
it probably autorotates.
ewthmatth 1 year ago
copy of Kamov coaxial rotors model
1SidIcarus1 1 year ago
@1SidIcarus1 Negative, Kamov has no property of coaxial rotor technology, Sikorsky has tested thats technoloty on 70s S-69 or 60s Gyrodyne QH-50 DASH or Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne
minoslas 1 year ago
@minoslas Kamov produced his first coaxial rotor helis before the WW2, just to let you know
pavelcheshev 1 year ago
@pavelcheshev no one gives a shit who did what first.
MrGrassam 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGrassam Nobody gives a shit of what you post here, looser...
pavelcheshev 1 year ago
@minoslas well the first prototype using coaxial rotor technology KA-8 took off on November 12 1947 and in 1956 ka-15 was the first production coaxial rotors helicopter 356 were built. Shortly after that ka-18 was built using the same technology. and a coupe of more Ка-25 (1968), Ка-26 (1967)
MyHiDef 1 year ago
@minoslas Sikorsky S-69 is from 70s. Google coaxial Kamov Ka-8, it's from 40s
kibabiba 1 year ago
Looks like he was vibrating a lot when moving fast.. in his voice I could hear it and in the video he was shaking a lot!
MtnXfreeride 1 year ago
Je préfère le X3 !!
VolantPneu 1 year ago
@VolantPneu GET A GRIP! X3 Destined for the Darwin Awards of Aviation
Helipolarbear 1 year ago
@Helipolarbear
Howya head.
funfinn2000 1 year ago
it would of been nice to hear what the fastest helicopter sounds like near the ground.. instead of the generic techno, trance blend.
orizzonte 1 year ago 40
@orizzonte i totally agree. its not always cool to add in bg music
hydroboom 1 year ago 2
@orizzonte Would *have
AoDIronMask 1 year ago
@orizzonte this is true - no lame music please
gearsengineswings 1 year ago
@orizzonte That's no helicopter. Real helicopters use there rotor heads as propulsion, not a propellor
LuiSS95Impala 1 year ago
пирожки!!
p0dee 1 year ago
NICE!!!!!!!
kingmiller1982 1 year ago
POLSKA!
xxeb4sgxx 1 year ago
were the top blades moving quickly or slowly i couldn't tell...
theothertylaxguy 1 year ago
How fast is 250kt in terms of mph?
z3cka 1 year ago
@z3cka - 250 knots = 287.69 mph
jfjenofhrenon 1 year ago
@z3cka
250 kts = 287 mph
260 kts = 300 mph
dlplost 1 year ago
Love the video! Anyhow, STOVL version of F-35 is much better :P
drVitall 1 year ago
nice but apparently nasty high-frequency cabin resonance at top speed, doubles as a nice rear-end massage I guess ...
olivervcto 1 year ago
I gotta get me one of these!!!!!!!!
737rick 1 year ago
AH-56 Cheyenne + Kamov Ka50 = X2
carbiify 1 year ago
Pilot is a bad ass. I know it wasn't a first flight, but breaking any record in a helicopter is cool.
My7EatsV8s 1 year ago
Was the speed record aided by gravity?
thechannelc 1 year ago