@@donvanvliet9477 Et ? l'osprey n'est pas un prototype, il transporte plus de poids et est mieux conçu. Ce prototype utilise des arbres de transmission pour chaque hélice latérale.... bref pour moi il n'est pas terrible.
The osprey is not a helicopter. If the engine quits and your altitude isn't almost a mile, there is no auto rotation and there is no control. You fall out of the sky and die.
It should be a bit safer because there are two propellers that counter act the torque of the main rotor, so if one of them is damaged, the other is enough for it to fly safely
This is simpler than a coaxial rotor and it can afford retreating blade stall because of the lift provided by the box wing and the thrust provided by the forward facing propellers. It's a different solution, it has pros and cons compared to a coaxial helicopter or a coaxial+ tail facing rotor like Sikorsky Raider X
One has to wonder if a downsized version of this design wouldn't have been a better solution for the U.S. Army's FARA program... Doesn't have the speed of the V-280, but doesn't need it per design, and is much closer to a conventional helicopter = less risk. something more akin to Lockheed's XH-51in final form. Cheers.
It's both, especially in high speeds this is more efficient because the boxed wing creates lift that alleviate the losses of the retreating side of the main rotor while the thrust from the propellers not only counter act the main rotor's torque but they contributing to the forward thrust. It's a slightly more complicated design but much more efficient than a traditional helicopter, if the speed is even slightly high and not around the hovering regime.
Never mind Clean Sky 2, I want huge top speed. No more skinny mid sections, double biceps and quad stomps. Clean Sky 2, sell it to China and Asia, they love that kind of stuff, honestly.
Fuck the top speed! We want SUSTAINABILITY, both environmental but also ECONOMICAL! We want more value for our money. The whole reason why this helicopter was developed was to have greater "cost-efficiency" & matter of fact, RACER stands for "Rapid And COST EFFECTIVE Rotorcraft". So don't come here spreading these nonsense cz we here in Europe LOVE ourselves a green sky (cz these helicopter will have at least 20% lower fuel burn) and some money to spare (cz their maintenance costs are expected to be lower). As for Asia, well the Asians also LOVE value for money: what's wrong in wanting more for the money you pay? So yeah...these helicopters very have high potentials for export worldwide.
Интересно почему пилоны толкающих винтов такие большие? Надеюсь потому что там топливо а не потому что там редукторы. Там редукторы... ну хоть не двигатели)
Interesting, but why? What do the pusher-props do for the aircraft? How do they improve over a normal rotor? Video critique: Cut all background sounds from the clips and just play one piece of music at a low level. The chopped up sounds on this video were terrible.
![[FR] L'Airbus RACER le nouvel Hélicoptère Girodyne d'Airbus. Premier vol d'essai.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NOLrIF7yPz0/mqdefault.jpg)
Who butchered the audio?
Looks better than osprey
L'osprey est bien plus efficace.
@@Didier88600 Effective at what? The Osprey is way more expensive to run.
the osprey is proven effective at unaliving its occupants.
@@donvanvliet9477 Et ? l'osprey n'est pas un prototype, il transporte plus de poids et est mieux conçu.
Ce prototype utilise des arbres de transmission pour chaque hélice latérale.... bref pour moi il n'est pas terrible.
The osprey is not a helicopter. If the engine quits and your altitude isn't almost a mile, there is no auto rotation and there is no control. You fall out of the sky and die.
It feels much safer than normal helicopter.
It should be a bit safer because there are two propellers that counter act the torque of the main rotor, so if one of them is damaged, the other is enough for it to fly safely
How about a coaxial main rotor so VNE could be greatly increased?
This is simpler than a coaxial rotor and it can afford retreating blade stall because of the lift provided by the box wing and the thrust provided by the forward facing propellers. It's a different solution, it has pros and cons compared to a coaxial helicopter or a coaxial+ tail facing rotor like Sikorsky Raider X
Não tinha como botar célula de combustível à hidrogenio nisso?!
One has to wonder if a downsized version of this design wouldn't have been a better solution for the U.S. Army's FARA program... Doesn't have the speed of the V-280, but doesn't need it per design, and is much closer to a conventional helicopter = less risk. something more akin to Lockheed's XH-51in final form. Cheers.
As a compromise between VTOL, ability to hover efficiently and speed, 'Racer' should be very hard to beat
Cool
This is an efficiency thing more than a speed thing, right?
It's both, especially in high speeds this is more efficient because the boxed wing creates lift that alleviate the losses of the retreating side of the main rotor while the thrust from the propellers not only counter act the main rotor's torque but they contributing to the forward thrust. It's a slightly more complicated design but much more efficient than a traditional helicopter, if the speed is even slightly high and not around the hovering regime.
Frankencopter
Chapeau ! La France et l'hélicoptère !
Une Belle Épopée qui s'écrit Chaque Jour et n'a PAS fini de Nous Surprendre et de Nous Etonner ! 🇨🇵🇨🇵🇨🇵
Love the music...what song is this?
It's an experimental French House track by DJ Safran :p
French nd the russians make some of the best looking aircrafts❤
I might have thought the props more aft - further away from down draft
Maybe inform the helicopter company about their mistake.
Yikes! That audio. It was so distracting, I didn'rt really notice what the video was about, some sort of helicopter I think.
Never mind Clean Sky 2, I want huge top speed. No more skinny mid sections, double biceps and quad stomps. Clean Sky 2, sell it to China and Asia, they love that kind of stuff, honestly.
Fuck the top speed! We want SUSTAINABILITY, both environmental but also ECONOMICAL! We want more value for our money. The whole reason why this helicopter was developed was to have greater "cost-efficiency" & matter of fact, RACER stands for "Rapid And COST EFFECTIVE Rotorcraft". So don't come here spreading these nonsense cz we here in Europe LOVE ourselves a green sky (cz these helicopter will have at least 20% lower fuel burn) and some money to spare (cz their maintenance costs are expected to be lower).
As for Asia, well the Asians also LOVE value for money: what's wrong in wanting more for the money you pay? So yeah...these helicopters very have high potentials for export worldwide.
No mast bumping.
Un rotor y dos hélices para llevar 4 personas..... 😮
Pardon a reply in English, but still one engine and 25% cheaper to run per mile flown and a lot quicker. What's the problem?
Este es un prototipo, demas, el ec-175 sobre el cual esa celula parece baseada lleva 12 pax.
Интересно почему пилоны толкающих винтов такие большие? Надеюсь потому что там топливо а не потому что там редукторы.
Там редукторы... ну хоть не двигатели)
Pode ser mais eficiente , que um helicóptero comum mas é mais feio e esquisito.
Interesting, but why? What do the pusher-props do for the aircraft? How do they improve over a normal rotor?
Video critique: Cut all background sounds from the clips and just play one piece of music at a low level. The chopped up sounds on this video were terrible.
The aim is to increase cruise speed.
Agreed for the vid sound.
Nobody is ever going to buy that crap
They are selling it. Its just a test piece.
Way to make a complex piece of machinery even more of a headache to work on!
It's marginally more complex (if at all) than a conventional helicopter, despite being more capable