I remember for years Americans scoffed at the dual rotor designs of the Ka series Russian helicopters. The Russian helicopters were much more maneuverable and fast...so here we are a couple of decades later.
Actually it was never in action. They couldn't make it work. You'll never see this adopted by any military it doesn't work and never will. You see commercials not an actual military using them in combat. Unreliable POS. AATW RLTW.
@@DCTSheindo he mentioned the pusher prop, not the koaxial rotor. However materials are much higher sophisticated now then before. Maybe that one will make it
@@chrispatsox The Cheyenne wasn't killed by the pusher prop. In fact the pusher prop worked fine. The program was killed after a main rotor flex/oscillation event resulted in a crash of one of the prototypes and death of the pilot. Cost overruns and politics ultimately killed it. There were still bugs to work out, but it was an incredible piece of machinery. The SB-1 is even better, as it features ridgid contra-rotating rotors, negating the need for stub wings (as the Cheyenne had) to maintain lift at high speeds.
One human mistake and hundreds of millions of dollars will explode on the ground. (The distance between the trees was carefully measured 30 times before this American helicopter flew in.)
Hitting a few branches probably isn't going to damage the rotors. Helicopter pilots have been known to do this intentionally to fit into a small landing zone, in combat situations.
@@freetrade8830 helis are made for manoeuvrability, speed is not a governing factor this isn't Airwolf or blue thunder and pushing those main rotors over their max speed only ends one way. The heli itself looks great but as stated the Kamov line of helis have an operational track record and it would be foolish to ignore the data.
@@wj427 nah i just find it funny how many people say "it looks like a kamov!" Or "lockmart stole the KA-52!" When the only real similarity is the coaxial rotors.
Uh... chin-bubble anyone? Got it; it's more automated than any other helicopter out there probably, but for real: if it's a helicopter, you really need to give the pilots a chin-bubble. Also, that seemed more like B-roll footage than anything worth publishing... come on Sikorsky
Wrong. Get your facts straight. The KA-52 was built in the mid 80’s. If anything, it was copied from the 1973, Sikorsky ABC design. See below The Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) system consisted of two rigid, contra-rotating rotors (30 inches apart) which made use of the aerodynamic lift of the advancing blades. ... Forward thrust was provided by two turbojets, which allowed the main rotor to only be required to provide lift. Role: Experimental compound helicopter Manufacturer: Sikorsky Aircraft First flight: July 26, 1973 Primary users: NASA; United States Army
Way too manny moving parts way too many untested moving parts and way too many lies about its capabilities. This is a car salesman commercial its not anymore real than a video game.
I remember for years Americans scoffed at the dual rotor designs of the Ka series Russian helicopters. The Russian helicopters were much more maneuverable and fast...so here we are a couple of decades later.
COAX helis are much worse on maintenance though and uptime... its faster yea but it has drawbacks too
Getting pretty tired of your crabby attitude and your indecent looks around here 'WJ7' - ... if you wanna step outside, we can go bro
Yeah, but would you buy a Russian made car?
My dad was crewchief on the Cheyenne right before they canceled the project. Good to see that pusher prop back in action!
Actually it was never in action. They couldn't make it work. You'll never see this adopted by any military it doesn't work and never will. You see commercials not an actual military using them in combat. Unreliable POS.
AATW RLTW.
@@chrispatsox so, the kamov was a glitch in the matrix?
@@chrispatsox you are not too much into helicopters, or?
@@DCTSheindo he mentioned the pusher prop, not the koaxial rotor. However materials are much higher sophisticated now then before. Maybe that one will make it
@@chrispatsox The Cheyenne wasn't killed by the pusher prop. In fact the pusher prop worked fine. The program was killed after a main rotor flex/oscillation event resulted in a crash of one of the prototypes and death of the pilot. Cost overruns and politics ultimately killed it. There were still bugs to work out, but it was an incredible piece of machinery. The SB-1 is even better, as it features ridgid contra-rotating rotors, negating the need for stub wings (as the Cheyenne had) to maintain lift at high speeds.
Was anyone else humming the Airwolf theme song as they watched this?
Nope.
If this thing don't win I don't know what the hell I'm missing! What a badass helo! I can't wait to see what that thing can really do!
Let's see a full-down auto!
LANDS THE FRONT WHEEL ON A DIME, MILLION TIMES SAFER THAN BLACK HAWK, GROWLS LIKE A TIGER WHEN SHE FLIES...MAGNIFICENT!!!
Please replace the Chinook
Airframe is from the 1970's
Sikorsky died a long time ago, all his brilliant ideas died with him.
Nice 👍
👍👍❤❤
a king stallion could land there. try harder
One human mistake and hundreds of millions of dollars will explode on the ground. (The distance between the trees was carefully measured 30 times before this American helicopter flew in.)
Hitting a few branches probably isn't going to damage the rotors. Helicopter pilots have been known to do this intentionally to fit into a small landing zone, in combat situations.
It's looks like science fiction kind of helo
Just buy a Kamov. They're already in operation and they "work".
Kamov doesn't have a pusher propeller, so it will have a hard time competing on speed with this.
@@freetrade8830 helis are made for manoeuvrability, speed is not a governing factor this isn't Airwolf or blue thunder and pushing those main rotors over their max speed only ends one way. The heli itself looks great but as stated the Kamov line of helis have an operational track record and it would be foolish to ignore the data.
Taking a bit of inspiration from the Russian V-80 that evolved into the Ka-50 Black Shark and Ka-52 Alligator helicopters……fair enough 😜
Looks like Kamov....
LoOkS lIkE a KaMoV
@@steven.2602 Stay pressed Stevie with the fragile American ego lol
@@wj427 nah i just find it funny how many people say "it looks like a kamov!" Or "lockmart stole the KA-52!" When the only real similarity is the coaxial rotors.
too complicated, too dependant of computers, electric failure kills it totally. fix those, it's awesome!
this thing will be used against american rebel fighters.
Uh... chin-bubble anyone? Got it; it's more automated than any other helicopter out there probably, but for real: if it's a helicopter, you really need to give the pilots a chin-bubble.
Also, that seemed more like B-roll footage than anything worth publishing... come on Sikorsky
They copied the Russian KA-52..copycats..
Wrong. Get your facts straight. The KA-52 was built in the mid 80’s. If anything, it was copied from the 1973, Sikorsky ABC design. See below
The Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) system consisted of two rigid, contra-rotating rotors (30 inches apart) which made use of the aerodynamic lift of the advancing blades. ... Forward thrust was provided by two turbojets, which allowed the main rotor to only be required to provide lift.
Role: Experimental compound helicopter
Manufacturer: Sikorsky Aircraft
First flight: July 26, 1973
Primary users: NASA; United States Army
@@LA-ep2nr WRONG. The Russians have had this design before then. Keep your fragile American ego in check.
@@wj427 No ego here. Just facts. Look it up.
@@LA-ep2nr Experimental ..In that case Sikorsky copied Jules Verne
Lmao are you guys are actually arguing who copied who, when in the world of military everybody copies one another?
Way too manny moving parts way too many untested moving parts and way too many lies about its capabilities.
This is a car salesman commercial its not anymore real than a video game.
Yeah, let's go back to the UH-1
Well, someone here is working for the competition...
@@robertedwards3822 yes please. Way more beautiful that this thing. 😁😅
@@DCTSheindo Either that or he's a Chinese troll. 🤣