Bell V-44 QTR (Quad Tilt Rotor) multi-purpose VTOL

hesham

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
26 May 2006
Messages
32,683
Reaction score
11,907
Hi,

do you here about Bell V-44 and Bell-626 tilt-wing VTOL transport aircraft:
 

Attachments

  • V-44.jpg
    V-44.jpg
    45.7 KB · Views: 1,241
Now that the Osprey is finally in service and production, and Bell/Boeing has a go for the Quad Tilt Rotor dubbed "V-44".
What are the chances that in the next ten years or so we will actually see V-22 variants? If the US Armed Forces are happy with it, and, who knows, it will also be available for export (probably Israel / Japan) we just might see more variants. The SV-22 seems a likely option, as well as a AEW variant, especially for LHD/LHA operation, giving these amphibious forces a very capable airwing fo which now a CVN is necessary.
 
"...Bell/Boeing has a go for the Quad Tilt Rotor dubbed "V-44"."

That is a bit of an overstatement at this point. It is still a concept being looked at, but no one has committed to bending metal.
 
A model of the Bell Quad TiltRotor concept design is showcased at the Sea Air Space 2016, Navy League's International Maritime Exposition.
Sources:
www.twitter.com/AirRecognition
www.twitter.com/JamesDrewNews
www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/sea-air-space-2016.html
www.defence-blog.com/news/bell-helicopter-and-boeing-showcase-concept-of-cargo-tiltrotor-at-sea-air-space-exposition.html

Edit:
I just saw the spine on top of the fuselage. I wonder if it houses a "4x4" rotor driveshaft.
 

Attachments

  • Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_0.jpg
    Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_0.jpg
    102.7 KB · Views: 640
  • Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_1.jpg
    Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_1.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 615
  • Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_2.jpg
    Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_2.jpg
    35.9 KB · Views: 591
  • Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_3.jpg
    Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_3.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 572
  • Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_4.jpg
    Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_4.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 177
If Lockheed is looking for something to keep its Marietta plant in production for another 50 years, I would be putting a lot of IR&D into this concept. As a replacement for the C-130, a vertical landing equivalent would attract a lot of interest. Given the freedom allowed in an IR&D program, they could also try leveraging the technology from the X-55 to reduce costs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgbr8uOaiVY
 
Interesting pop-culture note: On ABC's Agents of SHIELD TV show, the bad guys of HYDRA have a quad-tiltrotor that looks like the V-44.
 
The spine on the top of the QTR is indeed the drive shaft. Put there for ease of maintenance and so it did not impact the interior compartment size.

Hope springs eternal I guess. Can't see the USN doing this alone. Unless USAF Inc. has a revolt; new things with propellers will not be seen in AMC while the C-17 mafia is in charge. US Army started all this and actually got a requirement into the system, only to be crushed by USAF Inc. who did a senior flag level Arc Light on the effort at the OSD level.
 
fredymac said:
If Lockheed is looking for something to keep its Marietta plant in production for another 50 years, I would be putting a lot of IR&D into this concept. As a replacement for the C-130, a vertical landing equivalent would attract a lot of interest. Given the freedom allowed in an IR&D program, they could also try leveraging the technology from the X-55 to reduce costs.
Click to expand...

The only people who were seriously interested in it was the US Army. Thankfully, everyone shouted them down at how stupid their idea was and it finally officially died in 2008, but QTR was dead long before FCS was killed.
 
it is a bad idea because X-55 doesn`t represent Lockheed-Martin engineering. It is a German Do-328. Basing future on rebadging wil have long term consequences in precision engineering expertise.
 
Please discuss cats and X-55 in other topic(s).
 
Kat Tsun said:
fredymac said:
If Lockheed is looking for something to keep its Marietta plant in production for another 50 years, I would be putting a lot of IR&D into this concept. As a replacement for the C-130, a vertical landing equivalent would attract a lot of interest. Given the freedom allowed in an IR&D program, they could also try leveraging the technology from the X-55 to reduce costs.
Click to expand...

The only people who were seriously interested in it was the US Army. Thankfully, everyone shouted them down at how stupid their idea was and it finally officially died in 2008, but QTR was dead long before FCS was killed.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate? Would be interested in your sources.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom