V-280 Valor News and Discussion Thread

itchief · Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:57 pm

Here is a link that has video of the first flight.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... ing%20News

Aesma · Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:54 pm

A bit weird looking.

With this and the Osprey, if an engine separates (say, from an AA gun attack), can it still fly/glide, or would its equilibrium be too affected ?

Tugger · Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:11 pm

itchief wrote:
Here is a link that has video of the first flight.

Interesting that the blurred the view of the transmission/driveshaft sections.

Tugg

mxaxai · Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:23 pm

Aesma wrote:
A bit weird looking.

With this and the Osprey, if an engine separates (say, from an AA gun attack), can it still fly/glide, or would its equilibrium be too affected ?

If an engine separates or one side stops providing lift this thing is toast. Just like any helicopter whose rotor detaches. If they're smart, though, they'll have a link between the left and right rotor to avoid crashing due to a single engine failure.

Ozair · Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:11 pm

mxaxai wrote:
If they're smart, though, they'll have a link between the left and right rotor to avoid crashing due to a single engine failure.

Agree, just like what is present on the V-22 and the CH-47.

Tugger · Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:25 am

mxaxai wrote:
If they're smart, though, they'll have a link between the left and right rotor to avoid crashing due to a single engine failure.

Yes, they are cross linked. It can operate on one engine.

Tugg

keesje · Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:59 am

Tugger wrote:
itchief wrote:
Here is a link that has video of the first flight.

Interesting that the blurred the view of the transmission/driveshaft sections.

Tugg

Yes indeed.

Apparently some telling views on key technology not to be shared.

But still important to show off it flies.

zanl188 · Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:51 pm

Tugger wrote:
Interesting that the blurred the view of the transmission/driveshaft sections.

Tugg

Blurred on the ground run video as well:

https://youtu.be/dafw9bFOr1I

I'll go out on a limb here and speculate the transmission is electric & classified/proprietary as a result. :-)

But seriously, electric transmission would have advantages for survivability and flexibility of design. No cross shaft for one.

dragon6172 · Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:01 pm

zanl188 wrote:

Blurred on the ground run video as well:

https://youtu.be/dafw9bFOr1I

I'll go out on a limb here and speculate the transmission is electric & classified/proprietary as a result.

But seriously, electric transmission would have advantages for survivability and flexibility of design. No cross shaft for one.

Not really sure what you are thinking? No direct connections between engine and transmission? Highly unlikely in my opinion.

JetBuddy · Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:28 pm

I agree this thing is weird looking. It's like it's 75% engines/rotors/wings and 25% helicopter fuselage. Doesn't look efficient to me. But Bell knows better than me.

SheikhDjibouti · Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:45 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I agree this thing is weird looking. It's like it's 75% engines/rotors/wings and 25% helicopter fuselage. Doesn't look efficient to me. But Bell knows better than me.

50% of the traffic over my house is V-22 Osprey, so to my eyes it's quite normal.
What I would look for is a gearbox positioned as high as possible to allow the rotors to turn in forward mode without striking the ground when landing.
Either that or extra tall undercarriage like on a giraffe. A big weakness of the V-22 (IMO) is that even though it has a wing, it cannot land as a glider if it's engines fail. In fact it cannot land as a conventional aircraft with, or without engine power.

In contrast, an AV-8B can take-off and land as a regular aircraft, if there is a 6,000ft runway available.

(Ok, I admit I'm guessing that last bit - maybe the undercarriage isn't actually stressed for those types of operations - I confess I've never seen an AV-8 land in that manner)

Ozair · Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:39 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
In contrast, an AV-8B can take-off and land as a regular aircraft, if there is a 6,000ft runway available.

(Ok, I admit I'm guessing that last bit - maybe the undercarriage isn't actually stressed for those types of operations - I confess I've never seen an AV-8 land in that manner)

An AV-8 has no problem landing conventionally but I'm not sure why you made the comparison, the aircraft have very different mission sets.

SheikhDjibouti · Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:18 am

Ozair wrote:
An AV-8 has no problem landing conventionally but I'm not sure why you made the comparison, the aircraft have very different mission sets.

The similarities are that both types can take off and land vertically, and then transition to horizontal flight supported by wings. You are welcome to name other types that can do this too, but AFAIK it's only going to be a fairly short list. What missions they can accomplish was never part of my agenda.

The relevance of that particular similarity? I cannot believe that wasn't perfectly clear in my original post - but if you need me to repeat it.....

An AV-8 can land conventionally, which may be useful if it suffers an engine failure but can glide to a nearby runway. (However, it is possible that in all cases of engine failure, standard policy is to point the a/c out to sea and eject. I don't know.) It can also take-off from a conventional runway, and this allows a higher payload.

A V-22 Osprey suffering a (single?double?) engine failure in normal flight, cannot easily glide and land in a conventional way. If the (failed) engines are locked in normal (horizontal) flight mode, the huge diameter rotors will impact the runway long before the undercarriage reaches the tarmac. Alternatively, if after engine failure they can somehow rotate the engines (& rotors) into vertical flight mode, they avoid this scenario, but create huge drag. So for various reasons I suspect that the V-22 makes a very poor glider.

The V-280 could have the opportunity to put this right. For a start I get the impression it has a more useful wing. Secondly the engines remain horizontal, and only the driveshafts rotate out of alignment and create drag in forward (unpowered) flight. So, if for instance the undercarriage is particularly tall (like a giraffe), and the wing is mounted on a pedestal above the fuselage, maybe with significant dihedral, we might find that the rotors remain clear of the ground whilst in horizontal (normal flight) mode. This would enable conventional landings, either with or without power. However, all the pictures I have seen so far show this is not the case, and it would require re-designing. At this time I haven't seen actual rotor dimensions to know how close to possible this might be. I'm just postulating the idea.

How do you see the V-280 coping with a double engine failure? Could it auto-rotate to a safe landing like a normal helicopter? I have my doubts.

itchief · Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:14 am

The V-22 is a tiltrotor and does not rely on autorotation for a survivable power-out landing. The wide separation of the engines and the ability to drive both rotors with one engine make a power-out landing extremely unlikely. However, if required, the V-22 can glide for a predictable run-on landing in airplane mode, much like a turboprop
I've seen glide ratios of 2:1 and 4.5:1 quoted on the Internet, so it'll come down quite hard and destroy the rotors.

However, the design mitigates against this in various ways, or so the manufacturer claims. In the survivability section of the same handbook they say

V-22 crashworthiness is a function of design. Heavy components, such as the engines and transmissions, are located away from the cabin and cockpit area. The proprotors are designed to fray or “broomstraw” rather than splinter on impact with the ground. The energy-absorbing landing gear system is designed to attenuate most of the energy for hard landings up to 24 fps. The wing is constructed to fail outboard of the wing/fuselage attachment in a manner that absorbs kinetic energy and ensures the cabin area will not be crushed, thereby protecting the occupants. An anti-plow bulkhead prevents the nose from digging in on impact, and the fuselage provides a reinforced shell that is designed to maintain 85% of its volume during a crash. Aircrew and embarked troops receive additional protection from crashworthy seats that stroke vertically to absorb energy.

Ozair · Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:21 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
The similarities are that both types can take off and land vertically, and then transition to horizontal flight supported by wings. You are welcome to name other types that can do this too, but AFAIK it's only going to be a fairly short list. What missions they can accomplish was never part of my agenda.

The relevance of that particular similarity? I cannot believe that wasn't perfectly clear in my original post - but if you need me to repeat it.....

An AV-8 can land conventionally, which may be useful if it suffers an engine failure but can glide to a nearby runway. (However, it is possible that in all cases of engine failure, standard policy is to point the a/c out to sea and eject. I don't know.) It can also take-off from a conventional runway, and this allows a higher payload.

A V-22 Osprey suffering a (single?double?) engine failure in normal flight, cannot easily glide and land in a conventional way. If the (failed) engines are locked in normal (horizontal) flight mode, the huge diameter rotors will impact the runway long before the undercarriage reaches the tarmac. Alternatively, if after engine failure they can somehow rotate the engines (& rotors) into vertical flight mode, they avoid this scenario, but create huge drag. So for various reasons I suspect that the V-22 makes a very poor glider.

The V-280 could have the opportunity to put this right. For a start I get the impression it has a more useful wing. Secondly the engines remain horizontal, and only the driveshafts rotate out of alignment and create drag in forward (unpowered) flight. So, if for instance the undercarriage is particularly tall (like a giraffe), and the wing is mounted on a pedestal above the fuselage, maybe with significant dihedral, we might find that the rotors remain clear of the ground whilst in horizontal (normal flight) mode. This would enable conventional landings, either with or without power. However, all the pictures I have seen so far show this is not the case, and it would require re-designing. At this time I haven't seen actual rotor dimensions to know how close to possible this might be. I'm just postulating the idea.

How do you see the V-280 coping with a double engine failure? Could it auto-rotate to a safe landing like a normal helicopter? I have my doubts.

Relax, I wasn't accusing you of anything, just interesting that you chose to compare a fighter jet with a troop transport.

As for how the V-280 will handle those situations, I expect it will behave the same way most rotary wing troop transport do and essentially drop. The aircraft's rotors are definitely too large to allow landing parallel to the wing. Below is a graphic but you get the idea.

It also appears that the wing changes, and rotor not engine rotation, were undertaken to reduce complexity. It could have an unintended side effect of improving recovery but I doubt it.

“What Bell has done is taking its historical V-22 aircraft, and all the demonstrators before that, and applies them to this next-generation tilt-rotor. It is a straight wing versus a V-22 which is not straight. This reduces complexity,” Dan Bailey, JMR TD Program Manager, said in an interview with Scout Warrior last year. “They are also building additional flapping into the rotor system and individual controls that should allow for increased low-speed maneuverability.”

https://scout.com/military/warrior/Arti ... -101456597

Spacepope · Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:40 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I agree this thing is weird looking. It's like it's 75% engines/rotors/wings and 25% helicopter fuselage. Doesn't look efficient to me. But Bell knows better than me.

50% of the traffic over my house is V-22 Osprey, so to my eyes it's quite normal.
What I would look for is a gearbox positioned as high as possible to allow the rotors to turn in forward mode without striking the ground when landing.
Either that or extra tall undercarriage like on a giraffe. A big weakness of the V-22 (IMO) is that even though it has a wing, it cannot land as a glider if it's engines fail. In fact it cannot land as a conventional aircraft with, or without engine power.

In contrast, an AV-8B can take-off and land as a regular aircraft, if there is a 6,000ft runway available.

(Ok, I admit I'm guessing that last bit - maybe the undercarriage isn't actually stressed for those types of operations - I confess I've never seen an AV-8 land in that manner)

Although the props won't survive, the V-22 can make a normal straight ahead landing. Once.

Max Q · Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:35 am

Seems impressive, just too large to fit on some missions

SheikhDjibouti · Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:35 am

Spacepope wrote:
Although the props won't survive, the V-22 can make a normal straight ahead landing. Once.

I am much obliged to itchief, Ozair, & Spacepope for enlightening me as to how to crash land a V-22 (& presumably the V-280 also)
If I ever get a ride in one, I shall feel a whole lot happier.
Thanks guys. :bigthumbsup:

WIederling · Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:25 pm

keesje wrote:
Tugger wrote:
itchief wrote:
Here is a link that has video of the first flight.

Interesting that the blurred the view of the transmission/driveshaft sections.

Apparently some telling views on key technology not to be shared.

Hiding where it is copied from :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Achgelis_Fa_269 ( ok same but inverted.

zanl188 · Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:52 pm

dragon6172 wrote:

Not really sure what you are thinking? No direct connections between engine and transmission? Highly unlikely in my opinion.

Although I believe it’s unlikely in this application, electric transmissions have made inroads in other modes of transportation. Automotive, marine azipods, etc.

Consider the advantages of an electric transmission in this application...

sonic67 · Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:25 pm

Some interesting specific of the V-280:

The V-280 is designed for a cruising speed of 320 mph (520 km/h). It will reportedly have a top speed 350 mph (560 km/h), a range of 2,400 miles (3,900 km), and an effective combat range of 580 to 920 miles (930 to 1,480 km). Maximum take-off weight is expected to be around 30,000 lb. The major difference between the Valor and the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor is that Valor's engines remain in place while the rotors and drive shafts tilt. A driveshaft runs through the straight wing, allowing both prop rotors to be driven by a single engine in the event of engine loss. The V-280 will have retractable landing gear and a triple-redundant fly by wire control system.

Kiwirob · Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:22 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:

In contrast, an AV-8B can take-off and land as a regular aircraft, if there is a 6,000ft runway available.

(Ok, I admit I'm guessing that last bit - maybe the undercarriage isn't actually stressed for those types of operations - I confess I've never seen an AV-8 land in that manner)

Here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cxATLtHZZA

SheikhDjibouti · Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:51 am

Kiwirob wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
In contrast, an AV-8B can take-off and land as a regular aircraft, if there is a 6,000ft runway available.

(Ok, I admit I'm guessing that last bit - maybe the undercarriage isn't actually stressed for those types of operations - I confess I've never seen an AV-8 land in that manner)

Here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cxATLtHZZA

I'm grateful for the response, but actually it's not what it claims. Despite the video title, when you finally get to the take-off @9:21 you can clearly see that the thrust nozzles are pointing at ~60deg down therefore this is an assisted take-off. There are also clues in terms of the amount of runway used. Likewise the landing is much slower than one might expect.

This still leaves me worrying if the tyres are stressed for normal runway speeds, or more designed as big fat shock absorbers.

Sorry.

Ozair · Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:10 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cxATLtHZZA

I'm grateful for the response, but actually it's not what it claims. Despite the video title, when you finally get to the take-off @9:21 you can clearly see that the thrust nozzles are pointing at ~60deg down therefore this is an assisted take-off. There are also clues in terms of the amount of runway used. Likewise the landing is much slower than one might expect.

This still leaves me worrying if the tyres are stressed for normal runway speeds, or more designed as big fat shock absorbers.

Sorry.

Have a look at the AV-8B NATOPS available here, https://info.publicintelligence.net/AV-8B-000.pdf

There is a section on conventional take off and landing which says the following,

7.3.3 Conventional Takeoff
The CTO can be used when configuration or environmental conditions preclude use of any other takeoff type (i.e.,
crosswinds or asymmetric loadings). The CTO is restricted to gross weights that will not cause the wheel/tire
limitation speed of 180 KGS to be exceeded on the takeoff roll. Refer to Performance Data, A1--AV8BB--NFM--400.

7.6.7 Conventional Landing
A standard CL, Figure 7-7, requires substantially greater distance to stop than a SL or RVL. Landing distance
available is a critical consideration when performing a CL. The brakes are designed primarily for V/STOL and are
marginal for a CL without PNB; therefore, No PNB CLs should be used only as an emergency procedure. Refer to
Performance Data, A1--AV8BB--NFM--400, for stopping distance with and without PNB.

It appears that the brakes are the issue for landing, not tyre stress, and that is why PNB is used.

SheikhDjibouti · Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:26 pm

Ozair wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
This still leaves me worrying if the (AV-8B) tyres are stressed for normal runway speeds, or more designed as big fat shock absorbers.

Have a look at the AV-8B NATOPS available here, https://info.publicintelligence.net/AV-8B-000.pdf

There is a section on conventional take off and landing which says the following,
7.3.3 Conventional Takeoff; ....The CTO is restricted to gross weights that will not cause the wheel/tire limitation speed of 180 KGS to be exceeded on the takeoff roll.
7.6.7 Conventional Landing
A standard CL.... requires substantially greater distance to stop than a SL or RVL.
The brakes are designed primarily for V/STOL and are marginal for a CL without PNB; therefore, No PNB CLs should be used only as an emergency procedure.

It appears that the brakes are the issue for landing, not tyre stress, and that is why PNB is used.

LOL - it took a week, and plenty of going round the houses, but eventually we got there. Believe it or not, when I originally put the question, I only had vague suspicions in my head; I genuinely did not know this was the answer.

Thanks to a.net, Ozair, and everyone else who added something to this slightly off-topic side-issue.

sonic67 · Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:50 am

Has anyone heard any news about the test flight progress? All I could find out from a press release is that as of 22 January, it had accumulated 2.7 flight hours, with 38.7h of rotor turning time.In mid-January, four flights were performed during the same week, with two sorties taking place on the same day.

Thanks,

itchief · Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:46 pm

picking up speed, 80kts

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/te ... rd%20Brief

Max Q · Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:43 am

Seems like most ‘conventional’ take offs and landings still use partial nozzle vectoring to shorten runway use on the Harrier

Makes sense and you can lift a greater payload, besides it seems like it’s wheel brakes are not it’s strong point as you don’t have much use for them

That lack of braking is compounded of course by only having one main wheel bogie to install them on !

itchief · Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:17 pm

Some V-280 news,

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/0 ... rd%20Brief

bigjku · Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:48 pm

itchief wrote:
Some V-280 news,

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/0 ... rd%20Brief

I am not a huge believer in the FVL program. I think the research is important but I don’t think it will cost out well and am not sure the capabilities are necessary across the board. The UH-60 is mostly a flying truck. When you apply the engine updates to it from the ITEP program it picks up tons of capability making the bar that much higher for a presumably more expensive FVL program.

itchief · Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:08 pm

bigjku wrote:
itchief wrote:
Some V-280 news,

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/0 ... rd%20Brief

I am not a huge believer in the FVL program. I think the research is important but I don’t think it will cost out well and am not sure the capabilities are necessary across the board. The UH-60 is mostly a flying truck. When you apply the engine updates to it from the ITEP program it picks up tons of capability making the bar that much higher for a presumably more expensive FVL program.

One size fits all does not always fit as we have seen in the past. You might not always need the "flying truck". A mix of speed and flying truck might make more sense.

Ozair · Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:45 pm

bigjku wrote:
I am not a huge believer in the FVL program. I think the research is important but I don’t think it will cost out well and am not sure the capabilities are necessary across the board. The UH-60 is mostly a flying truck. When you apply the engine updates to it from the ITEP program it picks up tons of capability making the bar that much higher for a presumably more expensive FVL program.

I personally see more potential in the other competitor for the FVL, the SB-1. It does have more of a conventional layout, may take up less ramp space but may not have the speed of the V-280.

Hasn't flown yet though which is concerning but reports are first flight will be this summer.

texl1649 · Thu May 17, 2018 2:23 pm

V280 has now reached 190 knots. Lot's of hours. I am not sure of the cost delta vs. the fully updated/modernized UH60 derivatives, but I don't see a lot of extra costly/components, similar engine power etc. Throw a FATE set of engines on it, and the wing being about 30-40 percent cheaper to make vs. the V22, and I do think it's a serious competitor for a real procurement program.

If it's Bell vs. Boeing/Lockheed (sikorsky, on the SB-1), I think it's reasonable to suspect the Bell final costs might likely be lower, while also cynically suspicious they will somehow appear higher in the bid documents/process.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/05/16/b ... -advances/

Max Q · Sat May 19, 2018 10:07 am

PNB on the Harrier I think means power nozzle braking ?

So the nozzles are rotated beyond the vertical stop to where they are pointing slightly forward then thrust is increased for ‘vectored reverse’ ?

itchief · Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:54 am

Bell’s V-280 Valor shows off agility, speed in first public flight demo

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/0 ... ight-demo/

itchief · Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:43 pm

Not a request from DOD but Bell is planning ahead, Bell Pushes V-280 Gunship, Shipboard Variants, Recon.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/bel ... rd%20Brief

Ozair · Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:55 pm

V-280 now flying wheels up.

Bell V-280 Valor Tiltrotor Aircraft Performs Maiden Flight with Retracted Landing Gear

Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron Inc., announced that its V-280 Valor tiltrotor aircraft performed its maiden flight with the landing gears retracted.
“Continuing the pace after recent demonstration flights, the V-280 raised its gear entering another phase of envelope expansion and validation of key performance parameters”, the company said in a statement.
The aircraft had conducted its maiden flight on Dec. 18 last year while the first cruise mode flight was performed on May 11 this year. During the “cruise mode,” the rotors pivot, in flight, from vertical lift mode to fully forward facing.
V-280 Valor is a third-generation tilt-rotor aircraft being developed by Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin for the U.S. Army’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program.
The Bell V-280 Valor program is part of the Joint Multi Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) initiative. The JMR-TD program is the science and technology precursor to the Department of Defense’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program.
The Team Valor includes Bell Helicopter, Lockheed Martin, GE, Moog, IAI, TRU Simulation & Training, Astronics, Eaton, GKN Aerospace, Lord, Meggitt and Spirit AeroSystems. GE Aviation will manufacture the engines for the V-280, with the prototype (air vehicle concept demonstrator, or AVCD) using the General Electric T64.
In one major difference from the earlier V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, the engines remain in place while the rotors and drive shafts tilt. A driveshaft runs through the straight wing, allowing both prop rotors to be driven by a single engine in the event of an engine loss. The fuselage is visually similar to that of the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk medium lift helicopter.
The V-280 has a retractable landing gear, a triple-redundant fly by wire (FBW) control system, and a V-tail configuration. The wings are made of a single section of carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer composite, reducing weight and production costs.
The V-280 is reportedly capable of a cruising speed of 280 knots (320 mph; 520 km/h) (hence the name V-280), a top speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), a range of 2,100 nautical miles (2,400 mi; 3,900 km), and an effective combat range of 500 to 800 nmi (580 to 920 mi; 930 to 1,480 km).
Expected maximum takeoff weight is around 30,000 lb. The V-280 will have a crew of 4 and be capable of transporting up to 14 troops. Dual cargo hooks will give it a lift capacity to carry a 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) M777A2 Howitzer while flying at a speed of 150 knots (170 mph; 280 km/h).

https://defpost.com/bell-v-280-valor-ti ... ding-gear/

trpmb6 · Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:52 pm

Unpopular opinion of the day... The v280 isn't the prettiest of birds out there.

aumaverick · Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:32 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Unpopular opinion of the day... The v280 isn't the prettiest of birds out there.

Is it the large and ungainly V tail that throws off the proportions? The engines and nacelles aren't too distracting.

trpmb6 · Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:38 pm

aumaverick wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Unpopular opinion of the day... The v280 isn't the prettiest of birds out there.

Is it the large and ungainly V tail that throws off the proportions? The engines and nacelles aren't too distracting.

I think it's just the proportions. The engines (read propellers/rotors) are so unwieldy compared to the comparatively small tail and fuselage. And the fuselage isn't even really small as far as helicopters go. It's just the engines are THAT big!

Don't get me wrong, I love the valor. It's just that red-headed step-child type of love.

estorilm · Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:32 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
aumaverick wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Unpopular opinion of the day... The v280 isn't the prettiest of birds out there.

Is it the large and ungainly V tail that throws off the proportions? The engines and nacelles aren't too distracting.

I think it's just the proportions. The engines (read propellers/rotors) are so unwieldy compared to the comparatively small tail and fuselage. And the fuselage isn't even really small as far as helicopters go. It's just the engines are THAT big!

Don't get me wrong, I love the valor. It's just that red-headed step-child type of love.

I bet a really long telephoto shot with slow shutter speed for the big blades from the front looks pretty mean though. :twisted:

trpmb6 · Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:34 pm

estorilm wrote:
I bet a really long telephoto shot with slow shutter speed for the big blades from the front looks pretty mean though.

This is an Osprey, (and poor quality) but gives you an idea hehe

trpmb6 · Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:36 pm

Does anyone know if the Valor can taxi? I assume it might be able to pitch the rotors fwd enough to get some fwd movement, but it'd be incredibly inefficient.

estorilm · Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:36 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
I bet a really long telephoto shot with slow shutter speed for the big blades from the front looks pretty mean though.

This is an Osprey, (and poor quality) but gives you an idea hehe

Yeah seeing that thing coming at you... yikes. (they sound really unique too)

WIederling · Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:07 am

trpmb6 wrote:
Does anyone know if the Valor can taxi? I assume it might be able to pitch the rotors fwd enough to get some fwd movement, but it'd be incredibly inefficient.

IMU these ships have full cyclic blade control. You don't need to tilt for directional flight.
you need to tilt for _high speed_ forward flight.

bigjku · Sat Aug 25, 2018 2:37 pm

[twoid][/twoid]

WIederling wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Does anyone know if the Valor can taxi? I assume it might be able to pitch the rotors fwd enough to get some fwd movement, but it'd be incredibly inefficient.

IMU these ships have full cyclic blade control. You don't need to tilt for directional flight.
you need to tilt for _high speed_ forward flight.

This is correct. My understanding is both the bell and Sikorsky product for this have to do everything standard helicopters do.

I still feel like the biggest threat to both FVL programs is going to be the performance increases that we can get in existing helicopters simply from putting the new engines being worked on into them. Yes both this and the SB-1 should do better but a lot of helicopters duties really amount to trash hauling.

Personally I like the compound design better than the tilt for a variety of reasons. I can see roles for both but for the eventual utility chopper that does everything from cargo to ASW I feel like it’s a more balanced solution. But you have to get a utility bird in the cost vicinity of a UH-60 as that chopper with new engines is going to be a very good performer and quite cheap.

IADFCO · Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:25 am

Interesting comment. New engines, no matter how advanced, will not let the UH-60 meet FVL/JMR speed requirements, but will indeed put pressure on showing that the extra speed is really needed and worth the extra cost and complexity.

Nomadd · Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:50 am

Anybody thinking that the extra speed isn't a major thing can spend a few hours under fire, waiting for support to show. Rapid response has never been more important than it is today.

Noshow · Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:46 am

If these birds can be made reliable enough, and that is just a matter of time and money, I can see some big future in commercial aviation. Imagine city center to far away hub airport or right away to the next city center. Tiltrotors are truly fascinating. More like all those electric manned toy drones together.

WIederling · Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:02 am

Noshow wrote:
If these birds can be made reliable enough, and that is just a matter of time and money, I can see some big future in commercial aviation. Imagine city center to far away hub airport or right away to the next city center. Tiltrotors are truly fascinating. More like all those electric manned toy drones together.

what is the noise footprint with these things ( landing/take off )?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net