header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Texas and OU to where?!?!

 (Read 24389 times)

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6065
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #616 on: August 13, 2021, 11:21:22 PM »


Perhaps you can notice the forward tilt of the rotor system while the fuselage is level.  And you can see the canted vertical fin, leading to the thrust vector being left and upward in the picture.



These UH-60s show how the tail hangs low even as the rotor disc is tilted slightly forward.  The Black Hawk has a moveable horizontal stabilizer to create more lift to the tail when the helicopter is decelerating to land.  It wants to pitch nose high, but the canted tail rotor and the increased AoA of the horizontal stabilizer work to counteract that.  Even so, it still lands nose-high, but not as nose-high as it would be without those two components working as they do.
Play Like a Champion Today

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18937
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #617 on: August 14, 2021, 01:43:51 AM »
Yeah, but can they send or stop a computer virus?
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72060
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #618 on: August 14, 2021, 08:15:44 AM »
Is there a reason large chopper don't use an extendible wing in flight to provide some lift?  They don't need it?  Wouldn't help any?  I know they are speed limited due to the rotary wing losing lift on the movement away from direction of flight.  Is that a gyrocopter?

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6065
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #619 on: August 14, 2021, 10:17:36 AM »
Wings can take some of the load off the rotor system in forward flight, so you can go faster, although drag increases.  The aforementioned Mi-24 Hind has stub wings.

The other downside is that they hurt hover performance because they are big flat plates stuck into the rotor downwash.

I think the the Hind-D (which is not the current version, but is the one I'm most familiar with) cannot hover fully loaded on a standard day.  It has to do a rolling takeoff.

There's no free lunch.  You design the helicopter to do the things best that you want it to do best, but at the expense of other things it won't do so well.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2021, 10:24:26 AM by CWSooner »
Play Like a Champion Today

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12295
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #620 on: August 14, 2021, 10:18:49 AM »
Thanks for the explanations, @CWSooner !

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6065
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #621 on: August 14, 2021, 10:53:23 AM »
Sure thing, @betarhoalphadelta .

After CFB, history, and cars, helicopters might be my favorite subject.
Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72060
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #622 on: August 14, 2021, 11:04:20 AM »
I was thinking of retractable wing{lets}, something that is only there in forward flight, but that adds weight, tradeoffs.

I like cars, history (esp military), flying things, and cosmology.


CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6065
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #623 on: August 14, 2021, 07:10:37 PM »
Yeah, you did mention retractable wings.  That would sure eat up a lot of interior space.  Maybe wings that could be rotated through 90 degrees around the long axis) so they would provide the least amount of drag on the downwash at a hover.  But, then, what if you have wing stores?  And, even without wing stores, the mechanism to do the rotating adds weight and complexity.  More to go wrong, more to get damaged in battle.

I like this from Sikorsky.

Sikorsky X2

Sikorsky is submitting helicopters with this technology for the Army's next-generation medium-lift (Black Hawk replacement) and Scout-Attack (Apache replacement) helicopters.

I am very disappointed that the Scout-Attack version does not have tandem seating.  Attack aircraft need tandem seating to minimize frontal space and so that both pilots are looking down the centerline of the aircraft.

BTW, you don't need a tail rotor with coaxial counter-rotating main rotors.  The pedals affect which rotor is getting more pitch applied to it, and so the fuselage will rotate in the opposite direction.

The "tail rotor" on the Sikorsky X2 is a pusher-prop.  I think it's capable of reversing its thrust to do an ultra-fast stopping maneuver.

This is what is called a compound helicopter.
Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72060
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #624 on: August 15, 2021, 07:41:21 AM »
I was thinking more a commercial helo.  Obviously the tradeoffs are negative.  The A6 had side by side seating which aviators said was useful for coordination in an attack plane.  The increased frontal area is probably less of a concern in a subsonic jet powered AC.

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6065
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #625 on: August 15, 2021, 11:44:21 AM »
Reduced frontal area (I mistakenly posted "space") is mostly to minimize the helicopter as a target when what it's shooting at starts shooting back.  But, all else being equal, it will be faster too.

One of the missions of attack helicopters is to escort troop-carrying helicopters.  Hard to do that well if the troop carrying helicopters are faster than the attack helicopters.

There are some advantages to side-by-side seating.  Cockpit coordination is a big one.  But, IMO, they are outweighed by the advantages of tandem seating in an attack helicopter.  The Army's first real "gunship" helicopter was the UH-1C--a Huey.  It was an improvement over what had come before, but there's a reason that the AH-1 Cobra was developed with tandem seating, the YAH-56 Cheyenne (cancelled, a pity) had tandem seating, the AH-64 has tandem seating, the RAH-66 Comanche (cancelled) had tandem seating, and every NATO and Soviet attack helicopter of which I am aware has tandem seating.

My suspicious mind where government contracting is concerned makes me wonder if Sikorsky has already been told that the Army is going to pick the Bell (tandem-seating) entry for the attack helicopter and the Sikorsky entry for the medium-lift helicopter.  The Bell entry is just a conventional helicopter with the not-so-big differences that it has a fenestron tail rotor (canted--interestingly) and retractable landing gear.  Not even coaxial counter-rotating rotor systems.  It will be  only incrementally faster than an Apache, when it needs to be a quantum leap faster.



Call me unimpressed.  If Sikorsky wins the medium-lift contract with its X2-technology (compound helicopter) and Bell wins the attack helicopter contract with the conventional helicopter shown here, it will greatly increase the top-speed disparity between the lift helicopter (UH-60) and attack helicopter (AH-64) that we have today.

You can't escort aircraft that are faster than you are unless they slow down to your speed.  In that case, why go to the trouble and expense to make the lift helicopters much faster than they are now?

Here's the Sikorsky (Lockheed Martin) proposal.  Everything there is great and good except for the cockpit layout.



So Bell has the better cockpit layout and Sikorsky has everything else better.  Disappointing that neither could get it completely right.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2021, 11:50:24 AM by CWSooner »
Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72060
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #626 on: August 15, 2021, 05:44:32 PM »
The majority of Navy transports are slower than escorts of course, the exception being ships like the Queen Mary pressed into service, and she wasn't escorted, she just made a dash using speed to get by any but a very lucky U Boat.


CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6065
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #627 on: August 15, 2021, 07:34:03 PM »
So Bell has the better cockpit layout and Sikorsky has everything else better.  Disappointing that neither could get it completely right.
I misstated that.  What I meant to say is that Sikorsky has the better propulsion and control technology.

On the Sikorsky concept, those doors lined with missile racks that pop out for shooting said missiles need the interior space provided by the fatter fuselage that accompanies a side-by-side cockpit.  So the cockpit layout is integral with the rest of the concept.
It's interesting that Lockheed Martin now owns Sikorsky.  Lockheed built the YAH-56 Cheyenne, the best attack helicopter that never was.  Army attack pilots a little older than me lamented its cancellation.
And at the rear of the fuselage . . . a pusher-prop.


No counter-rotating main rotors, though, so it still needed a tail rotor.

General characteristics

Crew: 2 (pilot in the rear, gunner/co-pilot to the front)
Length: 54 ft 8 in (16.66 m)
Height: 13 ft 8.5 in (4.178 m)
Empty weight: 12,215 lb (5,541 kg)
Gross weight: 18,300 lb (8,301 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,739 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric T64-GE-16 turboshaft engine, 3,925 shp (2,927 kW)
Main rotor diameter: 51 ft 3 in (15.62 m)
Main rotor area: 2,063.2 sq ft (191.68 m2)
Blade section: Root: NACA (4.6)3012 mod; Tip: NACA (0.6)3006 mod[50]
Rotor systems: 4-bladed main rotor, 4-bladed tail rotor
Propellers: 3-bladed constant-speed pusher propeller

Performance

Maximum speed: 212 kn (244 mph, 393 km/h)
Cruise speed: 195 kn (224 mph, 361 km/h)
Range: 1,063 nmi (1,223 mi, 1,969 km)
Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6,100 m)
Rate of climb: 3,000 ft/min (15 m/s)

Armament

Guns: 1 × nose turret with either a 40 mm (1.575 in) M129 grenade launcher or a 7.62 mm (0.308 in) NATO XM196 minigun plus 1 × belly turret with an XM140 30 mm (1.181 in) cannon
Hardpoints: 6 with provisions to carry combinations of:
Rockets: 2.75 in (70 mm) FFA rockets
Missiles: BGM-71 TOW missiles


The majority of Navy transports are slower than escorts of course, the exception being ships like the Queen Mary pressed into service, and she wasn't escorted, she just made a dash using speed to get by any but a very lucky U Boat.
Yep.  When you've got a transport that can go 3 times the speed of any (submerged) attackers, you don't need escorts.

But flying into a hot LZ to drop off the infantry isn't very much like a high-speed dash from New York to Liverpool.  That would be more like going from London to armed and fortified Wilhelmshaven.
Play Like a Champion Today

TamrielsKeeper

  • Recruit
  • **
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #628 on: July 01, 2022, 05:19:16 AM »
The B10 needs to start thinking outside the box at this point.  Geography no longer matters and expansion has to come outside it's own footprint into growing states with a lot of football talent.  To me that leaves only three options - Texas, Florida, or California.  Texas is likely out - UT to the SEC looks like a done deal.  Florida is possible, but you have the gut the ACC for that to work.  They have a GOR secured through 2035 and you're directly competing in the SEC's back yard if you expand going SE.

This move by the SEC, IMO, is all about preparing to depart from the NCAA.  Total power grab and the B10 needs to respond or you eventually risk the SEC departing and being viewed as its own elite football division - something needs to be formed to compete with it.  To me, the only logical way to achieve that at this point is an aggressive PAC/B1G "Merger" of the top schools in the P12 in a B10 move to 20.

20 actually works really well for the B1G in terms of preserving geographic rivalries through a divisional format.  You have 9 conference games, 4 in your own division, 5 from a sister division that rotates every year.  End of season you end up with a CCG that is never a rematch cuz it's essentially two separate 10 team conferences that change each year.  This allows you to play everyone twice ever six years in the opposite divisions.

The PAC12 already has abysmal revenue from it's media rights deal.  it was rumored that USC/UCLA refused to extend the GOR last fall and it is set to expire in 2023.  If they want a seat at the final table of "NCAA football", they need to improve their revenue and they need to have inventory in some better time slots - blending the best of the P12 with the B1G would provide that opportunity.  Something like this could be an option:

Great Plains Division
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois

Great Lakes Division
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue

Atlantic Division (name subject to change here, I get it's not a perfect fit)
Penn State
Notre Dame
Maryland
Rutgers
Northwestern

Pacific Division
USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington
(pick your 5th - Stanford, Utah, Cal, Colorado seem most logical)

The above solves a lot of problems:

- B1G needs more national exposure and football recruiting hotbeds to compete with this new SEC
- The top dogs of the PAC12 need more revenue to compete in the new CFB climate with the NIL and can't get it due to the lower half of their conference not giving a hoot about CFB.
-  The four proposed schools are all AAU schools, and the footprint adds 3 new states.  Plenty of good options for #5 depending on what you value.
-  Notre Dame might finally see the writing on the wall if there's going to be an NCAA breakaway for major college football, plus there's talk the top few playoff spots will be reserved for conference champs only.  You could even slide ND into the Pacific division if they wanted to avoid the "midwestern" image of the B1G.
-  The B1G gutting the top of the P12 would create a safe landing spot for the B12 leftovers to merge with, albeit at a much lower revenue number then all of them are getting now.

I think the B1G needs to view this SEC move as a power grab and have this discussion with the schools at the top of the PAC, then respond accordingly.  The Rose Bowl is going to die under the expanded playoff format, maybe add UCLA to the conference and play the CCG there every once in a awhile as an homage to it.  If the B1G doesn't think outside the box here I fear that the SEC just leaves the NCAA and becomes it's own division with it's own championship.

The current PAC12 deal ends in 2023, so it's without question the path of least resistance from an expansion standpoint.

Bump.

Still think this is how it plays out!   ND is going to see they writing on the wall at this point - their current deal with NBC is paying around $20M per year, Wilner is reporting the new B1G deal is reportedly close to $100M per year:


https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1542589074770259968?t=fffsjo5ryYJjo4DuztvV2g&s=19

He also says the B1G isn't done:


https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1542597968296964096?t=ZLmTZIJ7vVuGXyCI5nKKUg&s=19

And finally, the ND agreement with the ACC appears to be a non-issue and they're the biggest chess piece left on the board:


https://twitter.com/CFBHeather/status/1542612183808368642?t=_SQ4leUGZSDsE-xDzxnxDw&s=19

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25442
  • Liked:
Re: Texas and OU to where?!?!
« Reply #629 on: July 01, 2022, 07:43:19 AM »
Great bump.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.